Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take with reference to the proposals for humanitarian assistance to the Spanish population contained in the communication addressed to him by the six Members of this House now in Madrid?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government have for some time been giving their earnest consideration to the question of the provision of further relief for the Spanish civil population, and it appeared to them that the organisation best suited to handling this matter on a broad international basis was the International Relief Union which, as the House will be aware, was formed under the auspices of the League of Nations to deal with disasters of exceptional gravity. His Majesty's Government have accordingly asked for an early meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union for the purpose of formulating a scheme for the immediate relief of suffering resulting from military operations in any part of Spain, with the further ultimate objective of endeavouring to organise measures of more permanent relief and reconstruction as and when occasion may offer. An introductory report for the committee is being prepared by the British representative. In the meantime the proposals referred to by the hon. Member have been received by His Majesty's Government and are also receiving their urgent consideration. I received yesterday a visit from several of the hon. Members will have just returned from Madrid, and discussed the whole position with them. I shall, of course, not fail to keep the House fully informed of developments.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposal put forward by the British representative to the Committee on Non-intervention to stop the flow of foreign volunteers to Spain was supported by the representatives of France and Soviet Russia?

Mr. EDEN: The proceedings of the Non-intervention Committee are confidential and I am, therefore, unable to add anything to the communiques which were issued to the Press on 4th December and 7th December after the meetings at which this matter was discussed.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that this proposal to limit volunteers going to Spain was put forward by the Italian and German Governments as long ago as August, and who opposed it then?

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not in order that we should have as soon as possible a Government statement on the position?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, certainly.

Miss RATHBONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no arrangement will be made by the Non-intervention Committee for the prevention of volunteers going to Spain unless it is certain that it will equally operate in the case of volunteers going to both sides?

Mr. EDEN: Certainly; that is the object.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information as to whether the German nationals recently landed at Cadiz are civilian volunteers or serving or ex-members of the German armed forces?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not ridiculous to talk of volunteers going from Germany?

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government, or their diplomatic representatives, have received


the notice issued from General Franco's headquarters at Burgos, that from 30th November to 15th December mines would be laid in the harbour mouths of a zone comprising a portion of the southern coast of Spain; and, if so, what instructions have been issued to British shipping proceeding to ports in this area?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. This warning was addressed to Sir Henry Chilton by the insurgent authorities on 30th November. It was passed on at once by His Majesty's Government to the British shipping concerns.

Mr. BELLENGER: Is not this operation factually if not technically a blockade, and is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to acquiesce in the situation?

Mr. EDEN: There is no question whatever of acquiescence on our part. Certainly not. But this question refers to something inside Spanish territorial waters.

Mr. BELLENGER: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that this is not a factual blockade?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

AMBASSADOR TO GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the German Ambassador to London also holds the position of controller in Germany of anti-Communist propaganda; and whether the Government are satisfied that this post is compatible with the duties of a diplomatist accredited to the Court of St. James's?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is No, Sir. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the German Ambassador has other duties in the Reich, as well as his duties here?

Mr. EDEN: That is another question.

Mr. MANDER: Is not the position of German Ambassador in England a full-time job?

TREATY OF RAPALLO.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in connection with the Treaty of Rapallo which was made between Germany and Russia and which was subsequently ratified in 1933; whether he is aware that the articles in the text of the Treaty state that the Treaty is for five years; and whether Germany repudiated this agreement in consequence of the recent agreement between Japan and Germany and Italy and Germany?

Mr. EDEN: The Treaty of Rapallo, a treaty of friendship between Germany and the Soviet Union, signed in 1922, was superseded by the German-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, signed at Berlin in April, 1926, which was valid for five years from the date of its ratification in June of the same year. In May, 1931, the Berlin Treaty was extended by the signature of a special protocol providing that each of the contracting parties could denounce it on giving a year's notice, but not before June, 1933. As far as I am aware, neither of the contracting parties has so far denounced this Treaty.

Mr. THORNE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman observed the financial relations that have been existing between Germany and Russia, and is he not aware that on 29th June, 1936, the Germans lent 300 million marks to Russia?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that the German Government ratified this Treaty of 1926 in 1933, and that therefore it is technically still in existence?

Mr. EDEN: I said that so far as I am aware neither of the parties has denounced it.

Miss RATHBONE: Is it not the ordinary custom of the German Government to violate treaty obligations without notice?

BATTLESHIPS.

Mr. DAY: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of battleships over 25,000 tons which Germany has built during the past two years and has under construction at the present time; and whether the Government still regard Germany as bound by the conditions with regard to the size of battleships as laid down in the Treaty of Versailles?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): Germany has completed no battleships over 25,000 tons during the last two years. As regards vessels under construction, His Majesty's Government have received official information that two battleships of 26,000 tons are being built. In addition, reports have recently appeared in a non-official German publication according to which a 35,000 ton battleship was begun in the autumn of this year and another of the same tonnage will be put in hand next year. As regards the second part of the question, the position is that His Majesty's Government will not for their part object to capital ship construction by Germany exceeding the limitation to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does that mean that the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, 1935, has given such a free hand to Germany that it must necessarily mean an expansion of the naval armaments of the world?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, I could not accept that construction or interpretation of my answer.

GREAT BRITAIN AND BELGIUM.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the announcement by the Belgian Prime Minister on 2nd December that Belgium is guaranteed support from Great Britain if attacked, but if Great Britain or others are attacked Belgium proposes to remain neutral; and whether he has any statement to make?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Belgian Prime Minister, in his speech on 2nd December, did not say that, if Great Britain or others are attacked, Belgium proposes to remain neutral. On the contrary, he reiterated his country's fidelity to her obligations, both as regards the undertakings entered into with France and this country last March, and as regards the provisions of the League Covenant.

Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any arrangement which exists or which may be made with reference to Belgium will be of a mutual kind?

Mr. EDEN: That is a further question on which I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present activities of the High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany; what funds are at his disposal and from what sources they have been obtained; and whether His Majesty's Government are giving him any assistance in his work?

Mr. EDEN: The present activities of the High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany are set forth in a Resolution adopted on 10th October by the Assembly of the League of Nations. As the section of the Resolution which deals with this matter is somewhat long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the question, a, suitable appropriation is being provided by the competent organs of the League to cover the administrative expenses of the High Commissioner. The sum required for this purpose for the year 1937 has been fixed at 82,500 Swiss francs. As regards the third part of the question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will continue to give the High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany all the assistance that they properly can.

Following 'is time section of the Resolution referred to:

"The Assembly recommends that a High Commissioner should be appointed until 31st December, 1938, for the purpose of liquidating, so far as possible, the problem of refugees coming from Germany, and that the High Commissioner's duties should include, in particular, the following:

(1)As regards the improvement of the legal status of refugees; to approach Governments in order to obtain their accession to the Provisional Arrangement of 4th July, 1936, and to prepare an Inter-Governmental Conference for the adoption of an international convention on the status of these refugees;

(2)As regards questions of emigration and final settlement; to encourage initiative on the part of private organisations; to support such initiative by negotiations with the Governments of the countries of refuge; and, if necessary, to have definite plans for colonisation and emigration studied on the spot, in agreement with the Government concerned;

(3)To maintain contact with the various private organisations, in particular through the Liaison Committee of an international character which has already been set up;

(4)To submit an interim report to the Assembly at its next ordinary session and, at its session of 1938, to present a report on the situation of the refugees at that moment and on the progress made towards the final solution of the problem, and definite proposals in regard to the future."

NANSEN INTERNATIONAL OFFICE FOR REFUGEES.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the course of the negotiations resulting in the adhesion of the Soviet Government to the League of Nations, any concessions were granted to them to secure their adhesion; and, in particular, whether any discussion took place or any pledge was given as to the liquidation of the Nansen Office for the relief of refugees?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is No, Sir. It follows from that that no pledge was given concerning the future of the Nansen Office. So far as I am aware the subject was never even discussed.

WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY.

Lieut.- Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any state-merit of the negotiations initiated by His Majesty's Government on the renewal of Article 19 of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, with regard to the maintenance of the status quo in the matter of fortifications and naval bases in the Pacific?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on 18th November to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander). I have at present nothing further to add.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the short time now remaining, will not my right hon. Friend press the Japanese Government to give an answer at the earliest possible moment? Are we to understand that no reply has been received from the Japanese Government?

Mr. EDEN: I have nothing further to add. Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is not this all the more important in view of the Japanese-German agreement? Ought we not to know exactly where we stand?

Mr. EDEN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are fully alive to the importance of this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RECRUITS.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Firt Lord of the Admiralty whether any obstacle is placed in the way of the enlistment of a recruit for the Royal Navy who, eligible in every other respect, declares that he is neither a member of the Church of England nor of any other denomination?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not the practice in the Navy quietly to remove anybody who, although otherwise qualified, happens to be a member of the Young Communist League or to read Communist literature?

THE CORONATION.

Mr. LOGAN: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can accede to the request put forward by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool that a portion of His Majesty's Fleet should pay a visit to Liverpool in Coronation week next May?

Sir S. HOARE: I can assure the hon. Member that the Lord Mayor's request will receive due consideration when the movements of His Majesty's ships at the time of the Coronation are being arranged.

LOWER, DECK (PROMOTION).

Mr. PARKER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date on which the last officer commissioned from the lower deck was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral on the active list and the date of his commission; and whether, in modern times, a captain from the lower deck has commanded a cruiser or a battleship in a sea-going fleet?

Sir S. HOARE: No officer promoted from the lower deck has yet attained the requisite seniority for promotion to the rank of rear-admiral on the active list. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and in this case, also, lack of seniority is the reason.

Mr. PARKER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings in the executive and engineering branches and men in the Royal Marines who each year since 1931 have qualified educationally, qualified professionally, been recommended for the fleet selection boards, by the fleet selection boards, and promoted to

Promotions from Lower Deck to rank of Acting Sub-Lieutenant
and Second Lieutenant, R.M.


—
Qualified by Examination during the year.
Recommended for Fleet Selection Boards.
Recommended by Fleet Selection Boards.
Recommended by Final Selection Board.
R.M.S Recommended to Admiralty.
Promoted.


1931—








Executive
4
Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive.
—
4


Engineering
13
Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive.
1
1


Royal Marines
—
Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive
1
1


1932 —








Executive
5
Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive
—
8


Engineering
12
Old "Mate" scheme in operation to 1932 inclusive
—
4


Royal Marines
—
—
—
—
—
—


1933 —








Executive
22
17
12
6
—
6


Engineering
21
13
9
4
—
4


Royal Marines
—
—
—
—
—
—


1934—








Executive
27
19
8
5
—
5


Engineering
6
9
4
4
—
4


Royal Marines
—
—
—
—
2*
1


1935—








Executive
25
12
3
3
—
3


Engineering
6
7
3
3
—
3


Royal Marines
—
—
—
—
2*
1


1936—








Executive

10
6
4
—
4


Engineering
Examinations not completed.
6
4
4
—
4


Royal Marines

—
—
—
2*
1


* Includes one not qualified educationally.


NOTES.—(1) The R.N. scheme of promotion is not entirely applicable to Royal Marine candidates. Recommendations are forwarded to Admiralty and the candidates appear before a Final Selection Board only.


(2) Candidates have only to pass one qualifying examination which includes both educational and professional subjects; separate results cannot therefore be given.

Mr. PARKER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of fully-qualified candidates, stating whether petty officers or leading seamen, on the gunner, gunner (T), and boatswains lists; and whether difficulties are still being experienced in obtaining a sufficient number of candidates for these ranks?

Sir S. HOARE: There are eight fully-qualified candidates on the gunner and one on the boatswains lists, all of whom are petty officers; there are no other fully-qualified candidates on the lists mentioned in the question. The number

commissioned rank under the sub-lieutenant, sub-lieutenant (E), and second—lieutenant, Royal Marines, schemes?

Sir S. HOARE: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the commended for the fleet selection boards, hon. Member's permission, circulate it by the fleet selection boards, by the in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information required:

of candidates coming forward has considerably, improved, but still further improvement is necessary to meet requirements.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What steps are being taken to induce candidates to come forward? Is any improvement in conditions contemplated

Sir S. HOARE: I have had an investigation made into the whole question. The investigation is just completed, and I have not yet had time to consider the recommendations. The position is as I have stated. It is better than it was, but it is not as good as it ought to be.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Could the right hon. Gentleman say on what date he would be able to make a statement, if I put down a further question?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not say at present.

JAMAICA (LOAN).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give particulars of what proportion of the £2,000,000 loan passed by the Jamaica Legislature has been lent to small cultivators; and whether all the details of the programme submitted for productive and other works have received his approval?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): With regard to the first part of the question, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) on 3rd March. I am sending him a copy of this. So far as I am aware, no part of the loan is being re-lent to small cultivators. At present a detailed programme of works, estimated to cost £557,422, has been approved.

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider all the details of the applications that have been made?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. The total loan is £2,000,000 for public works, and, as far as I know, no part is intended for advances to small cultivators. The public works which have received approval to date represent £557,422, or rather over a quarter of the total loan, and there are one or two further items of public works.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIRSCREW COMPANY, LIMITED, WEYBRIDGE.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that the Airscrew Company, Limited, of Weybridge, have refused to meet the representatives of the National Council of Aircraft Workers; and will an inquiry into the complaints of the aircraft council be instituted by the Air Ministry;
(2) whether he is aware that the Air-screw Company, Limited, Weybridge,

are not prepared to operate the recognised procedure of negotiations within the industry; and whether he will intervene in the matter to secure the payment of wages and observations of conditions in harmony with the terms of the Resolution of this House of 1909?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am informed that the firm in question did meet the representatives of the National Council of Aircraft Workers, and my Noble Friend sees no reason for instituting an inquiry as suggested. He has, in fact, received no complaints from any trade union that the wages and conditions of employment at the Airscrew Company's works are not in harmony with the terms of the Resolution of the House in 1909, or that the recognised procedure for negotiations within the industry is not being observed.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that I have a letter in my hand from the Secretary of the National Council of Aircraft Workers, the body which caters for aircraft workers, informing me that this firm refuses to meet their representatives; and, in view of that fact, will he undertake to meet the representatives of the National Aircraft Council in order to have this grievance considered?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has a letter in his hand, and I am equally aware that at the Air Ministry we have received no complaint from any union on this subject.

MAYBURY COMMITTEE.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the Maybury Committee was appointed; the total number of sittings that have taken place; and when he expects to receive their report?

Sir P. SASSOON: The committee was appointed in July, 1935, and has held 22 sittings. My Noble Friend hopes to receive their report very shortly now.

Mr. PERKINS: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the continued delay in the publication of the report has given the very unfortunate impression in aviation circles that there is something in it which the Air Ministry desire to suppress?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

FOREIGN AIRCRAFT.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether companies tendering for the South Atlantic route will be allowed to buy foreign aircraft?

Sir P. SASSOON: The proposals under consideration for an air service across the South Atlantic have been invited on the understanding that it should be an essential requirement that the airframes and engines should be of British manufacture throughout and that preference would be given to airframes and engines of British design.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that during the last two years there have been several new companies started in this country to manufacture foreign aero-engines under licence; and whether it is the intention of the Government to buy in quantity foreign engines made under licence in this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: The main factors on which the policy of the Air Ministry with regard to the purchase of aero-engines is based, were fully stated in the White Paper recently issued. They may, for convenience, be summarised as follow:

(a)The types of aeroplane adopted for Service use govern the engine requirements.
(b) The firm designing any particular aeroplane is primarily responsible for determining the type of engine most suitable for their design. Only in rare cases would the Air Ministry prescribe the type of engine to be used.
(c)The choice of engine is restricted to types which have passed a British type-test or have a reasonable prospect of doing so by the time production in quantity would be required.
(d)The choice of engine may be further restricted by the need for some measure of standardisation as it is important to avoid a multiplicity of types in Service.

All these considerations emphasise the soundness of the policy of concentrating on British types of proved excellence. The Air Ministry would not, however, refuse to consider the purchase of engines of foreign design made in this country though it is not the policy to buy such

engines in quantity when equivalent and equally suitable types of British-designed aero-engines are available.

SCANDINAVIAN SERVICE.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the accidents which have occurred, he will investigate the ability or otherwise of British Airways to offer a safe air service to Scandinavia?

Sir P. SASSOON: In view of certain statements which have appeared in the Press reflecting on the ability of this company, the company themselves have invited the Air Ministry to make an investigation of their methods of operation and maintenance. This will be done. I am bound to add, however, that I do not consider that the accidents, which have occurred on the night air mail service to Hanover, call into question the company's ability to offer a safe air service to Scandinavia. Indeed, I am glad to point out that the company's daily passenger service to Scandinavia has been operated since 18th February last with regularity and without accident.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: While thanking the right hon. Baronet for the first part of his reply, may I ask whether it is fair that he should express an opinion as to the safety or otherwise of the service when the company itself, according to the first part of his answer, acknowledge the necessity for an inquiry, because of the accidents which have occurred?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think it fair to point out that the Scandinavian service has run since the beginning of the year without accident and with regularity.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Perhaps the word "Scandinavia" in the question limits it too narrowly. Is it not a fact that in the past five months eight pilots have lost their lives in the service of this company?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is a fact that there have been accidents.

TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make any statement with reference to the contemplated agreement for the purpose of securing rights in the United


States for the Imperial Airways in return for the grant of rights to Pan-American Airways in Newfoundland; and whether these reciprocal concessions have been agreed?

Sir P. SASSOON: There is at present nothing that could be usefully added to the full statement which I made on 30th July last in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen).

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Baronet agree to publish the terms of the concession requested by this company?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SELBy BRIDGE.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Transport what is the approximate cost involved in taking over the scheme for by-passing Selby Bridge on the road from London to York; whether this involves an additional bridge over the River Ouse at Selby; and, if so, whether the coastal trade development council and other navigation and shipping industries have been consulted?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I understand that navigation interests were consulted by the engineers who reported on this scheme, and, in so far as I may be concerned, I should always be prepared to ascertain their views before coming to a decision about a bridge across tidal waters. My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to make any detailed statement at this stage concerning a scheme which may be taken over but at present rests with the existing highway authorities.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the authorities concerned have not yet reached any conclusion as to the building of a bridge?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Two of them have, and one of them has not.

Mr. PALING: In view of the nuisance which the existing bridge causes to traffic, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices in order to compel these people to get something done?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It will not be necessary, as Parliament is passing legislation giving the necessary power.

Mr. MUFF: Can the Minister say when the toll bridge at Selby will be abolished?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That point is covered by the answer which I have given.

TRUNK ROADS (WORKS).

Mr. PEAT: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention of the Government, in the event of the Trunk Roads Bill being passed into law, that all work of new construction or improvement of the roads taken over under the Bill shall be carried out by unemployed men from the distressed areas?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall examine sympathetically, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour what opportunities the passage of this Bill may afford for providing openings for unemployed men from the distressed areas.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is it intended that these works shall be carried out under Government direction or by contract?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I made a full statement on the Second Reading of the Bill. In most cases, the county councils will act as agents.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Mr. CASSELLS: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared, in view of the harm done by the drift south of Scottish industries, to recommend complete electrification of our present system of railways, in an effort to afford speedier and cheaper means of transport between Scotland and England?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not sure that the result which the hon. Member desires would necessarily follow, but in any case the responsibility for initiating schemes for the electrification of railways rests with the railway companies.

Mr. CASSELLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not conceive that such a suggestion would benefit Scotland from two points of view—first, from the point of view of assisting industry and, secondly, from the point of view of assisting in dealing with the unemployment problem? In these circumstances, I would ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to bring his good influence to bear upon the railway companies in connection with this important matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only repeat what I have said. The hon. Gentleman is concerned with the drift of people from Scotland to England, but if we improve transport facilities, the drift will presumably be increased.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not improve the conditions of railway transport if the right hon. Gentleman took the shackles off road transport?

ROAD SAFETY (SPECIAL OFFICERS).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to collate, within the limits of his power, local efforts to promote road safety and to relate them more clcsely to the general policy of his Ministry?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have decided, as an experimental measure, to appoint in each division under the divisional road engineer a special officer charged with certain duties in regard to road accidents. It will be his function to study the conditions in his area, sit on any local safety committees and generally take such action as may be possible to stimulate local interest in safety problems. He will, of course, examine all accident reports and all accident statistics and, under the general direction of the divisional road engineer, confer with local or police authorities and other bodies with a view to reducing the present risks and dangers.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if he reduced the number of taverns selling drinks on the high road, it would be one of the quickest ways of reducing road accidents?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The short answer is that I have no power to reduce the taverns.

Viscountess ASTOR: If the right hon. Gentleman were keen about these accidents, *as he seems to be, could he not, with his gift of publicity, make it possible for the country to know what these taverns are costing in child life?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that if the taverns were reduced, the men would then carry bottles?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report as to the confusion of the neon signs with regard to road traffic lights?

ROAD ACCIDENTS (SCAWSBY).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the frequent motor accidents which occur on the Doncaster to Barnsley road at Scawsby, where the road is a dangerous bottle-neck; and whether the road is scheduled for reconstruction?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no detailed information as to the number of accidents occuring at this point, but the West Riding County Council have adopted a scheme for widening the Doncaster-Barnsley road (A.635) as part of their five-year programme.

OFFICE OF WORKS (EMPLOYES' HOLIDAYS).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can inform the House of the number of employes of the Department who enjoy a holiday, with pay, on the King's birthday and the number who do not, stating the grades, technical, administrative and industrial?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): The day appointed to be kept in the Civil Service 'as His Majesty's birthday is one of the holidays with pay granted to approximately 2,310 employes (administrative, technical and clerical) of the Office of Works: of the remaining 6,550, all but a few 'are industrials: these receive six days' holiday a year, and, in addition, six public holidays—the King's birthday is not one of these.

REGENTS PARK.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 'asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works his plans regarding the dilapidated shed, sometimes used at a temporary school, adjoining the disused public convenience and white-washed wall near the north


lawn of the Queen Mary Garden in Regent's Park; And whether he will have them all cleared away and re-design the site as a decorative part of the Queen Mary Garden?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): So soon as funds are available, this 'area will be dealt with, but, meanwhile, the more urgent work in other parts of Queen Mary's Gardens must take precedence. My Noble Friend is not at this stage able to say what will eventually be decided About the future of the open-air school.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (AGE).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: asked the Attorney-General the number of justices of the peace now serving who are 90 years of age and over; whether he is aware that there are at the present time chairmen considerably over the age of 90 years; And will he consider imposing a limit to the age at which magistrates may serve?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Terence O'Connor): I regret I cannot give the information asked for in the first part of the question, as until a fairly recent date no records have been kept of the ages of justices of the peace. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does not think that it would be practicable, or in the public interest, to impose a hard-and-fast limit of age on persons appointed to the bench; but he does not approve the appointment of persons of advanced age, and he, in his communications with advisory committees, encourages the recommendation of younger persons and suggests, by such means as are practicable, the withdrawal from the bench of persons whose age or infirmity disables them from effectively performing the duties of a magistrate.

Sir F. SANDERSON: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are cases of justices over the age of 90 who have actually fallen asleep during the hearing of a case, and does he not think there is a good case for limiting the age to 90 years?

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the hon. Member now speaking is 80 years of age and as

vigorous as some of the fellows who are only 40?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is what I had in mind when I said that my noble Friend did not approve of a hard-and-fast age limit; it must depend on the question of efficiency in any particular case.

Mr. JAGGER: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman impose an intelligence test at the same time as an age limit?

ACTION FOR DAMAGES, BOW.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the comments of Judge Owen Thompson, K.C., at Bow County Court, on 2nd December, when dealing with a judgment summons for £41 17s., that the defendant had been induced to bring an action for damages regarding a street injury to his child by misleading statements issued by a legal claims society; and whether he will inquire into the case with a view to instituting proceedings against the person or persons responsible for the organisation to which the judge referred?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention. I will make inquiries into it and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this is by no means an isolated case?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am fully aware of that, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is not as simple a matter as it appears. I can assure him that the matter is being closely looked into.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Alexander Bouik, late 989, Scottish Rifles, 315148, Royal Army Medical Corps, was refused electrical hearing-aid from the Ministry while resident in Glasgow; that such treatment was granted to him when later he was resident in the London area, but that on returning to


Glasgow he was informed by the local area officer that it was not permissible to renew the aid-to-hearing appliance supplied to him in April, 1934; that he is receiving a smaller disability pension than similar cases in the southern area; and whether he will set up a committee of inquiry to ensure that more uniform treatment is afforded to pensioners throughout the country?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Ramsbotham): There is no difference in the Ministry's practice as between one part of the Kingdom and another. Mr. Bouik is in receipt of pension of 30 per cent., which is in fact the average rate of pension for his disablement. With regard to the particular complaint, the facts are that no electrical instrument suited to Mr. Bouik's case was available in 1920 when his defective hearing was originally attended to in Glasgow. The first application for such an instrument was only made by him in 1934, when he was duly supplied with one. A new instrument, which the pensioner had requested, to replace one so recently supplied as in his case, is not issued if the existing one is susceptible of repair, and following his further representations the present appliance was called up for examination a week ago and the necessary repairs put in hand.

RIVET INDUSTRY.

Mr. STOREY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the only rolling mills and rivet works on the River Wear has been sold for dismantling on account of its inability to obtain orders, owing to the import of foreign rivets into registered shipyards free of duty; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect the remaining rivet works on the northeast coast from foreign competition?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am not aware that the rivet industry is in difficulty on account of foreign competition. The latest information I have is that production in this country of iron and steel rivets and washers is increasing. In 1934 production amounted to 61,000 tons, whereas imports have for some years been less than 3,000 tons.

Mr. STOREY: Is my hon. Friend not aware that one rivet works has been sold for dismantling only this week and another on the north-east, coast is not working, and does he not think that it is absurd that the remnants of Free. Trade should be allowed to kill an industry in a Special Area, particularly as the cost of protection would only be about £200 on a 9,000 ton ship?

Mr. BENSON: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that he would be able to satisfy his Friends by stopping all imports of all kinds?

Miss WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving further examination to the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).

HEALTH PROPAGANDA.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the scheme submitted to him for a national campaign of health propaganda to be financed by insurance companies and approved societies; and whether he has arrived at any decision on the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend is aware that such a suggestion has been made, but no proposals for a national campaign have been made to him by insurance companies or approved societies. The general question of health propaganda is now receiving the consideration of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

CIVIL SERVANTS.

Mr. MAXWELL: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to make a general statement on the subject of civil servants in relation to membership of the Territorial Army and the National Defence Corps?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that, subject only to the vital requirements of the public service, Government Departments give every encouragement to members of their staff


to join the Territorial Army. All civil servants who undertake the full period of camp training have hitherto been allowed one week's special leave with pay. As already announced it has been decided to increase this provision in the case of civil servants whose normal leave allowance does not exceed 18 days and to give special paid leave for the whole fortnight in camp. As regards the National Defence Companies, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 3rd December. The paramount consideration is the vital need for making the best possible use of the available manpower. In an emergency a very severe strain would be placed upon the machinery of Government. Existing Departments would, in many cases, have to face vastly increased duties and new war time Ministries and Departments would become inevitable. The view is taken that civil servants eligible for membership of the companies, namely those over 45 years of age or unfit for active service, who in an emergency could be spared from their existing duties, ought in the national interest to be regarded as available for other Governmental activities for which their experience and qualifications would make them specially fitted. In these circumstances it has been decided that, viewing the requirements of the State as a whole, it would not be prudent to allow civil servants to enrol in the National Defence companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is in full agreement with this decision.

Mr. MAXWELL: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, in regard to the National Defence companies, whether he does not consider that as they are only used in a state of emergency, probably the defence of the country will be at least equally as important as the normal duties of many civil servants; and also, with regard to recruiting, will he bear in mind that private employers very often suffer the same disabilities in planning their businesses as the Government?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The reply I gave was a very full one. This decision has not been arrived at without careful thought.

Mr. CASSELLS: Does the Minister seriously suggest that civil servants should be placed in a special category by themselves?

LONDON.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the construction of the balloon barrage to defend London has been commenced; and whether he will have it tested to prove its efficiency?

The MINISTER for the COORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): The orders have been placed and delivery will begin at the end of this year.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Will these nets be of the same design as those used during the War, as on the only occasion on which any aircraft flew into one, the aircraft destroyed the net instead of the net destroying the aircraft?

Sir T. INSKIP: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into it, because I can assure him that that was the case?

Sir T. INSKIP: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is examined frequently and closely.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: But you have not had a test yet, have you?

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what methods there are for defending London against a low-flying aerial attack, antiaircraft artillery and a balloon barrage being ineffective against such an attack?

Sir T. INSKIP: While I do not accept the premises on which my hon. Friend bases his question, it would be contrary to the public interest to discuss the matter he raises.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence under the charge of what units of the Regular or Territorial Army the balloon barrage to defend London will be?

Sir T. INSKIP: The Air Ministry will be responsible for the balloon barrage, and units will be organised on the same lines as the present Auxiliary Air Force organisations.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the value of defence contracts placed in Lancashire in the last six months?

Sir T. INSKIP: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I made to him on 29th July and 11th November. I am still of the opinion that the amount of labour involved in compiling the information he asks for would be incommensurate with the value of the results obtained.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the reply given by the Under-Secretary for Air, in which particulars amounting to £5,000,000 were given for the Birmingham district, and may I ask him why we cannot have this information for Lancashire?

Sir T. INSKIP: I have made inquiries whether the information is available, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it would take a great deal of labour to get out the necessary figures.

Mr. D AG GAR: Does the difficulty arise because of the infinitesimal quantity, and that it is difficult to find it?

Sir T. INSKIP: Not at all. It runs into many millions—tens of millions in all.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Have not the Government already arranged for a munitions factory to be set up in Lancashire?

Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, Sir.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the value of the defence contracts placed abroad during the last six months?

Sir T. INSKIP: As stated in the answer on this subject given to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 2nd December, orders have been placed abroad by the Defence Departments to the value of about £400,000, including one contract for shell bodies amounting to £63,000. This contract was placed in Canada. Contracts for machine tools amounting to about £456,000 have also been placed abroad in order to expedite manufacture in this country.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the last occasion upon which he had a meeting with the special committee set up in Lancashire to facilitate the carrying out of defence contracts?

Sir T. INSKIP: I have not so far found it necessary to trouble the committee to see me. They have, as was arranged,

furnished much useful information as to facilities in Lancashire for production for Service purposes.

Mr. CHORLTON: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be a very good thing if he were to pay a visit to Lancashire and interview this committee?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: When the right hon. Gentleman is in Lancashire, will he go over the border and see Yorkshire?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORK.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the shortage of labour in Lincolnshire and some other arable areas of the country, he will arrange to send one of his chief officials at an early date to the Employment Exchanges in these areas with a view to making more effective arrangements to encourage workers from the distressed areas to transfer to these arable areas where a guarantee of permanent employment can be given to them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I am not aware that there is a shortage of workpeople for permanent, as distinct from seasonal, agricultural work in the districts mentioned and, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for West Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Dr. Leech) on 3rd December, the transfer of workpeople from the depressed areas to employment in agriculture presents practical difficulties. If, however, my hon. Friend, would send me particulars, I should be pleased to consider the matter further.

Mr. SMITH: As a great many farmers are short of labour, will my hon. and gallant Friend further investigate this shortage?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in North Norfolk and South Lincolnshire men are being diverted away from the land to go into Government works, and would it not be better to arrange to take and train men from the distressed areas for Government work than to take agricultural workers?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In answer to the first supplementary question, if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of cases he has in mind, we will investigate them apart from the general investigations that we are carrying out. With regard to the second supplementary question, we do, of course, make recommendations that employes for that particular kind of work should be obtained from Employment Exchanges, but contractors are free to obtain their employes where they will.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that no agricultural worker is prevented from improving his position?

CATERING TRADES.

Dr. LEECH: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the unfilled demand for girls, women, and boys to perform household duties at good wages in the Metropolitan residential area which will be increased by the influx of visitors to hotels and restaurants during the coming year, he will ask local authorities in South Wales and on the North-East Coast to organise a public active recruiting campaign to train and transfer suitable persons to the home counties from the distressed areas?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) on 19th and 26th November, 1936.

Miss WILKINSON: Has anything been done to have a close investigation into the conditions to which these girls go?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: We always have that under review, but, as I pointed out recently, it would be a great advantage if people would get these positions through the medium of the exchanges, so that the conditions could be more or less guaranteed.

HOSTELS, LONDON (TRANSFEREES).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour how many hostels there are in London for boys transferred from the depressed areas and how many for girls?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Four hostels, providing accommodation for 210

transferred boys, have been established by the Ministry in the London area, and four others with accommodation for about 250 boys are in course of preparation. One hostel for 40 girls will be opened shortly.

Mr. WHITE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider providing further hostels for girls?

Mr. THORNE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary assured that these boys and girls get sufficient wages to pay for their lodging and accommodation?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: We take great care, as the hon. Member must know, about the future care of all boys and girls who are transferred under our schemes.

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to add anything to the statement he made to the House on Monday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to-day, but I hope to make a statement to-morrow.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us a good hope of a statement to-morrow, because he will realise the anxiety, which is continuing and increasing?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that no one realises that more than I do.

Mr. BELLENGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave financial inconvenience is being caused to many subjects in this country by the delay in coming to a decision, and will the right hon. Gentleman kindly suggest to His Majesty the necessity for a decision without delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that does not escape me.

DISEASES OF FISH BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

DEFENCE SERVICES.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. PALMER: I beg to move,
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to take every possible step to secure the necessary voluntary recruits for His Majesty's Defence Forces, in particular to carry out any necessary improvements in the conditions of these Forces, and to ensure that the Regular Forces offer opportunities for careers, both during service and afterwards, comparable with the opportunities in civil life, and agrees that the appeal to the country for such recruits merits the support of all parties.
I make no apology to the House for raising this topic here this afternoon, for it seems to me that it is a very suitable topic in all the circumstances at present existing. I should like to make it clear to the House at once that I am not an expert in military matters, for I have never belonged to one of His Majesty's Defence Services, nor am I a member of the Territorial Army. I think there is, perhaps, some significance in the fact that a lay Member is raising this subject this afternoon and I should like to make clear my intention at once. I simply want to try to draw a general picture of the difficulties as I see them and to indicate some general lines of solution, but I hope very much that hon. Members who are much better qualified than I am to make contributions will assess at their right valuation these difficulties, and will put forward at the same time practical suggestions for their 'solution. If that be so, I think we shall be able to feel that we have taken a useful step this afternoon towards the solution of this most important problem.
The urgency and importance of the problem become only too obvious when we compare some aspects of the recruiting figures with the state of the world to-day, which is necessitating the rearmament programme of the Government. I say "some aspects" of the recruiting figures, but not all aspects. For example, I understand that in the Navy there is no deficiency of recruits, except as regards one small section of skilled men, and that is rather a separate problem. Equally, I understand that in the Air Force the position is that the number of vacancies has been over-applied for, both as regards pilots and as regards airmen and boys. Since May, when the extension of the Air Force was commenced, 2,500 pilots have been accepted, but there were 12,000 applicants for those places; and

as regards airmen and boys, 21,000 have been accepted out of 60,000 applicants for those places. And so, although we want to be sure that in future the numbers and the quality of those applying to join the Air Force and accepted remain as they are at present, we can feel a certain satisfaction with the position as it is now.
When we come to the Army, both the Territorial Army and the Regular Army, we find quite a different picture. It is clear that if ever this country were at war with an enemy who was within flying distance of our shores there would be no more inviting objective than London, and, that being so, every aspect of the anti-aircraft defence of London has to be brought to the highest possible pitch of efficiency. One aspect of anti-aircraft defence has been entrusted to two divisions of the Territorial Army. That responsibility means not only that those two divisions should be brought to the highest pitch of readiness as soon as possible, but it also means increasing the numbers required for bringing them up to establishment. understand that the increased number required for that purpose is about 14,000 men, and that altogether what is required is some 86,000 new recruits for the Territorial Army, that of that 86,000 the War Office does not have hope of obtaining during this year more than about 40,000, which would leave a deficiency of some 46,000. Although the conditions as regards the Territorials is said to be improving—

Captain DOWER: Can the hon. Member give the House what percentage of the full strength—if the Government have their way—the Territorial air defence section will be?

Mr. PALMER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, as I have not the exact figures, but perhaps the Secretary of State may be able to give the information later. When we come to the Regular Army we find that there is not an improvement which is even comparable with that in the Territorial Army. I understand the position to be, that whereas in the current year there are required 35,300 recruits to make up the wastage of those who are leaving, it is not expected that more than 21,500 will be obtained. In other words, the deficiency in the Regular Army, instead of being made up, is actually increasing.


We know that a, recent effort to start an Infantry Supplementary Reserve has not met with any but disappointing results. That being so, it seems that we must examine the reasons for this deficiency and try to find some remedies.
I would like to suggest to the House that we must look in two directions for the reasons. First, we must inquire whether there are any conditions which are special to the Army but which do not apply to the Navy and the Air Force, and, secondly, whether there are any conditions which apply to recruiting generally. As regards general conditions relating to the Army, the conditions for the Territorials are clearly not comparable with those for the Regular Army. There are many Members who have expert firsthand knowledge of the Territorial Army, and I hope they will put forward their views on this subject, but I should like to suggest, briefly, one or two ideas. First, there is the question of the appeal made for Territorials; but I should like to deal with that later when I speak of appeals in general for recruits. In addition to that there are the questions of finance, of holidays and equipment, each of which might be considered from this point of view. I understand, for example, that Territorial officers, many of whom have only small incomes, find that they have to bear a disproportionate charge for belonging to the Territorial Army out of the incomes they receive. Again, are we not possibly asking too much in the way of technical training from people who get very little material reward for it? It is well known, of course, that great sacrifices in the matter of holidays are often necessary on the part of anyone who wishes to belong to the Territorials.
Lastly, I think that a lack of equipment for the Territorials produces a sense of unreality, and damps enthusiasm. It produces the feeling that they are not properly cared for, and that harms recruiting. That same factor applies also to the Regular Army. For example, you have instances of it with regard to various items of equipment in field training service, and things of that kind. The only remedy for that is to make the equipment available. I am thankful that the Government are making every possible effort to get the equipment for the Regular and Territorial Armies. Apart from

the intrinsic value of the equipment, the action will contribute towards a solution of the recruiting problem.
Let me now pass from the Territorial Army to the Regular Army. It is natural for people to make comparisons between the prestige and the glamour of service in the Navy or the Air Force with service in the Army. There may be something in that. There is a widespread belief that the taste of young people for speed, machinery and adventure is better catered for in the Navy and Air Force than in the Army, and that to serve in the Army is, as it were, to be the unskilled labourer of the Defence Services. Surely the mechanisation of the Army may be changing that. It may very well be that the Army is more and more acquiring a higher type of man who can undergo the skilled training necessary to deal with the increasing mechanisation of the Army. If that be so, and if the Army is opening up opportunities to people with a taste for speed and machinery, that factor should be more widely known and better advertised among those who might take advantage of it.
It is not by comparing the Army with the Navy and the Air Force that we shall get to the root of the problem. If we are to understand the problem properly, we must make the true comparison, which is between the Army and civil life. If anyone is thinking about a career, the first thing he considers is which of the available alternatives, including unemployment, offers him the best pay. Anybody who considers the Army is liable to under-estimate the value of what he gets free of charge. That is only one aspect of the problem. I understand that a new recruit is very apt to find that there is a difference between his pay and his pocket money. He finds there are certain initial expenses which he was not anticipating. I suggest that it is worth considering whether there might not be some sort of enlistment grant, which would enable the new recruit, who is making a new start in a fresh kind of life, to do so without suffering any unexpected reduction of his pocket money. I would like that principle to be rigidly observed in later stages, too, to make sure that there is no element of disappointment as regards pocket money at any stage of a soldier's career. In addition to that, it might


be worth while considering whether there should not be better prospects for rises in pay with increases of efficiency, and also whether some reward should not be given for field service, and, still more, for danger service.
Apart from questions of pay, it is natural that anybody who is contemplating a career and possibly joining the Army should take into account other conditions as to comfort, food and leisure. In the Army, a man gets opportunities for keeping himself physically fit, for playing games, for life in the open air, and for experience of the world, which he would not get otherwise, but if those opportunities are to outweigh the disadvantages of hard living and of discipline, it is essential that there should not be too great a difference between the standard of life to be found in the Army and that which would be his if he stayed at home. We must recognise that housing conditions, food, opportunities for amusement, the use of leisure and so forth, are improving. If we are to have people viewing the Army as a possible career, it is clear that the Army is faced with increasing the standard of life to compete with the rising civil standard of life.
Other matters must be taken into account, such as whether or not it is desirable to shorten foreign service, and whether some improvement might be made in the medical services of the Army. I do not want to be thought to advocate too soft a life for the soldier. Quite clearly we must have discipline, but there are two kinds of discipline. There is the discipline rightly obtained by those who are fit to exercise responsibility, and the discipline wrongly imposed by those who are not so fit. Again, with regard to conditions of living, it is clear that we must have a certain amount of hardness, because a soldier's business may be to take part in war conditions, when it would obviously be essential that he should be accustomed to living at a level which is not altogether that of home life.
I would suggest that it is a matter for serious consideration whether the time' is not now ripe for some form of inquiry into Army conditions. I believe that if conditions are right, the opportunities given by the Army will be considered

more valuable than they are now, on one further condition, and that is that they lead to employment after service. If the Navy and the Air Force are compared with the Army in this respect, it will be found that more men come out of those two Services highly skilled and fitted to take a skilled job in civil life than there are out of the Army at present. I know that the Army's vocational training centres now give a certain amount of training, and that various views are held as to whether or not the question of employment after service is important.
Some people say that young men joining the Army do not look very far ahead. My answer to that is that the Army wants the kind of man who does look far ahead. In any case, people who think they might join the Army, whether they look far ahead on their own account or not, probably come into contact with those who have come out of the Army, and see them having to make a fresh start in life. There are people who hold that the question of employment after service is a key point, and that it would make a great difference to recruiting. We must bear in mind that one of the aims of the Government is to give increased security of employment to those who are in the most exposed conditions. If that be so, it is only just that the Government should try to give increased security to those who have served in His Majesty's Forces.
Various methods may be suggested for this purpose, for example, an extension of the system of vocational training, an attempt to get more people employed in Government services after they come out of the Army and the provision of some kind of inducement to employers. I admit that I have not made a detailed study of the possibilities of this question, and I hope that hon. Members who may have done so will give their suggestions this afternoon. But I would particularly, if I may respectfully do so, ask the Secretary of State if he would be good enough to examine this question, which everybody recognises is a very formidable and difficult one but which deserves consideration in any case, and might well prove a valuable line of policy from the recruiting point of view. I understand that the Government have recently been increasing their expenditure in order to make improvements in conditions in the Army, but I think that this House ought not to


be satisfied, and ought, if necessary, to be prepared to undertake an increased, and a permanently increased, expenditure until conditions in the Army are brought up to the standards which are genuinely comparable with the rising standards of civil life. To-day we advertise the Army as the finest job in the world. Clearly, that is the right basis for an appeal for recruits, and it is the basis that we ought to be able to take in appealing for recruits; but, before we take it as our basis, we want to be quite sure that it is a basis which we can say truthfully exists. We have to be sure that the Army is the finest job in the world before we make an appeal for recruits on that basis, which is the only firm basis on which to make that appeal.
I would like to say something about the question of appeal. To my mind the appeal for recruits has so far been made to individuals. When we consider what tremendous opportunities for publicity are offered by the great publicity mediums of this country, when we consider how great commercial enterprises advertise, how even the National Government is able to make its record widely known, although recruiting is in a different sort of category from these matters, nevertheless, the fact that publicity can be so successfully used for any particular purpose is one of great importance in this connection. I do not feel satisfied that publicity so far has ever made the nation aware, as it might be aware, of the necessity for Army and Territorial recruits, or that it has made the people who might be recruits sufficiently aware of their opportunities in this matter. I want to see every kind of method brought into play. I should like to see the assistance of the wireless, of posters, and of the Press enlisted for this purpose, and also the cinema, at which, I understand, the attendance per week in this country is upwards of 18,000,000 people. It might be that some special publicity committee should be set up for this purpose, but in any case it is certain that publicity, to be really effective, must be managed by those technical professional experts who alone can make full use of this method.
Apart from the extent of the appeal, we must also consider another aspect of the appeal for recruits. I do not, myself, think that it is a helpful method to appeal

to fear. You cannot frighten people into the Army; they will only join the Army if they want to join it. You must, therefore, appeal on the basis that it is a first-class job to belong to the Army, but you must be sure, when you make that appeal, that it is a first-class job; and you must also be able to appeal on the ground that it leads to another job afterwards, provided, of course, that the service has been good. To that material basis you can add the appeal to adventure, the appeal to a sense of service and patriotism; but the aim of the appeal is not that the Army may compete with the Navy and Air Force, but to increase the total volume of recruits available for all Services.
Lastly, I want to examine the question whether or not there are any checks on recruiting as a whole. Sometimes we hear it said that pacifism is a check on recruiting, but I am not much impressed by that. I do not think there are many genuine doctrinaire pacifists in this country, and I think that to advance that as a check on recruiting is merely misleading foreign countries, who do not very well understand our peculiar national temperament. But if we are not a pacifist nation—and we are not—we are a very peaceful nation, with a quite proper loathing for war, and that loathing for war is shared among all parties in this House and outside. We on this side have been forced to the conclusion that, in the present state of the world, it is necessary and indispensable that we should go in for a programme of extensive re-armament, and I am glad to think that hon. Members opposite are coming to be of that view too. I know that they are in a difficult position in this matter, that they blame the Government's foreign policy for having landed us in the state of affairs in which we are now. This is not the occasion to argue that question, but, whatever may be the reason, surely it is indispensable to recognise what the present state of affairs is. Therefore, I would ask hon. Members opposite whether they really can accept the very grave responsibility of not supporting the measures necessary for the protection of the lives and homes of those people who elected them to this House for that special purpose. Surely such a responsibility is too great for any hon. Member of this House to bear.
If I may sum up my argument, I ask that conditions in the Army should be sufficiently improved to be comparable with conditions in civil life; I ask for an intensive appeal which really has that solid basis behind it; and I ask for the support of that appeal by all parties in this House. For myself, I believe that these proposals are not unseasonable, and that, if they are carried out, this great and urgent problem is capable of solution. In that belief I ask the House to give unanimous support to my Motion this afternoon.

3.58 p. m.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that the House would like me to express our gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) for choosing this important subject for to-day's Debate, and to say that we appreciate the very thoughtful speech in which he has introduced the Motion. For my part, I am not inclined to regard the recruiting position with undue pessimism. Broadly speaking, the Air Force and the Navy are all right, and it is mainly in the regular Forces of the Army that the position is serious. I do not think it ought to be very difficult to overcome that, because the reasons are so obvious. The position was very well set out in a leading article in the "Times" about a week ago. It may be summarised under three main headings. First, you have the conditions of service; then you have the conditions in the Service; and then you have the conditions after service. To put it from the point of view of the man who is thinking of joining up, in the first place he wants to know how long he is letting himself in for; then he wants to know what he is letting himself in for; and then he wants to know what chance he has of getting a job after he has finished.
The present position is that we are inviting young men to sign on irrevocably for service in the Army for a period of seven years, six or more of which may be spent abroad; to sign on in this profession about which they really know very little, as they have never had a taste of it; to sign on in this profession where there is no home life, where a man is taken away from home and put into a barrack-room with a lot of other men whom he has never seen before; to sign

on in a profession in which he cannot marry until he is 26; to sign on in a profession in which, although he knows that discipline is strict and that it may not suit his temperament, he has yet got no chance of getting out of the job once he has put himself into it. Granted, he may purchase himself out, but few can afford to do that. Short of purchasing the only way is through prison and no reasonable man is going to risk sacrificing his whole life for that.
We are asking young men of our own stock to do this. We are a prudent people; we like to look before we leap. We are asking young men who are home-loving by nature to do this, for the working classes of this country generally stay at home until they are grown up. Granted that those who go to public schools leave their parents at the age of nine and go away to school for three years, and then to a public school for another five years, but the great bulk of people do not. They go to the local school and they spend their nights at home within touch of their parents. That does not stop at just children. Even when they grow up they are home-loving too, as anyone who has anything to do with transference schemes from the distressed areas has good cause to know. You ask these people to leave home and to take up a profession which, even if it is successful, is not guaranteed to provide them with a permanent job for life.
When I consider the facts frankly I am not surprised that men do not join up. These things are not asked of men in other occupations. The miner does not have to consider them; the bricklayer does not have to consider them; the agricultural worker does not have to consider them. All of them can stay at home, and they can get out of their jobs if they wish to and they have a chance, good or bad according to the times and according to which Government is in office, of taking up other jobs when they leave. But the soldier cannot do so. Obviously, under these conditions only the most enterprising type of man will think of joining the Army. What about the most enterprising? Are they not going to be attracted by the chances of making big money in civil life? If not attracted by that, are they not going to be attracted by the superior or equal attractions of the other two Forces, the Air Force and the Navy I believe that they are, and for this


reason: Both the Air Force and the Navy train a man to be an expert service man and also give him first-class training to be an expert in some branch of work when he leaves the Force. The ex-Air Service man is an expert mechanic; he is completely qualified for civil life in a way that no ex-soldier can be qualified, however many vocational courses he may attend.
It seems to me that the answer to that problem, the only answer, is to shorten the period of service. In saying that I am thinking of the Brigade of Guards, who never have any difficulty in getting recruits, in spite of the fact that their height standard is 5 feet 10, or 5 feet 11, which rules out the enormous majority of recruits who go to recruiting stations. The Guards do not have difficulty. What is the reason? It may be that the full dress makes a difference. It may be that their general reputation for excellence, which I as a Guardsman would be the last to minimise, makes a difference. But I do not think people will deny that it is largely due to the fact that they are enlisted for only four years instead of seven, and the fact that they will go abroad for only one or two years or very likely will not go abroad at all. I think that that is a very large contribution to their good recruiting.
I have suggested that short service is necessary. I do not want to argue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War whether his best plan would be to shorten the service of all regiments or to follow Mr. Forster's plan and have some regiments with short service and others with longer service, for I think that if there is one thing that the private Member is wise in not doing it is the making of detailed suggestions to a Government Department, because if he does that the Department just revels in picking holes in the details of the suggestion and the real idea of the scheme is lost in the welter of details that are destroyed. But, if I might, I would answer two broad criticisms that are likely to be put against this scheme. First, that short service men have not time to be properly trained. I do not think that that point needs emphasising after our experience in the War. Secondly, there is the criticism that it would cost so much more in sending drafts to and from India. I do not deny

the expense, but the money that would be spent would not be lost, and if the money so spent was helping British ships as a sort of subsidy, there are certainly worse ways of spending money. What the War Office needs more than anything else is a large reserve of trained men who have had experience of foreign service. It would give them that.
Another point relates to the conditions —not the length of service, but the conditions in the service. Oddly enough I believe that that point is the least important, because most people are prepared to take a chance of what happens to them, provided it is for a short enough time and provided that they are to get a good job at the end of it. I do not think that the conditions in the service are nearly as important as the length of service or the chance of a good job at the end of it.
On the question of conditions in the service, the obvious point to shout about is that pay should be increased. If money is going there are worse things to do with it than that, but I am not convinced that it is really necessary, provided that the man gets what he bargains for. That is the fundamental thing. When a man joins he bargains not only for his pay, which is small enough, but also for free clothing and free food. I am afraid that the pi (sent position is that a man has to supplement his food out of his pay, and sometimes he is called upon to supplement his clothing out of his pay. I know the answer is that there is a clothing allowance and that in view of that it is only reasonable that a man should be prepared to meet the expense of clothing out of the allowance given to him for the purpose. But I put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this point: If you give a man 12s, and then deduct 10s, the impression he has is that he is losing 10s, and not gaining 2s. Therefore, I believe my right hon. Friend would be well advised to consider having the clothing allowance issued not to individuals, but to units.
That would prevent the recurrence of the very unfortunate happening when men were sent to Palestine recently from Aldershot and had to pay out of their clothing allowance Ss. each for sun helmets. That matter has since been made right by my hon. Friend, I know


Certainly it was a hardship, because clothing allowance was meant to cover only normal expenses and this was a totally abnormal expense that no man would have expected to have to face; and he had not only to go to Palestine when he wanted to stay at home, but had to lose 8s. of his own for the pleasure of having a sun helmet. That case is by no means unique. I remember a similar case about 10 years ago when a battalion was ordered to Shanghai at a week's notice and the men had to make good a certain added expense which would not normally have been incurred and which they did not think it was fair for them to be asked to pay. If the Secretary for War would pay the clothing money to units and not to individuals all that sort of thing would end. The War Office would be advised of any hardship of that sort before it got as far as the troops and no damage would be done.
The question of barracks, I believe, is being taken in hand, and I will say nothing further about it. But the question of leave passes is important. I congratulate the War Office on the concession that they have made. I think it was high time that responsible men of the rank of sergeant and, over were allowed, when their duty was completed, to go out and not to report for duty again until they had some definite work to perform, and that they should not necessarily have a leave pass and be obliged to go into barracks. Equally with the other ranks, I think it is excellent that they should be allowed, when their duty is finished, to go out till one o'clock in the morning without passes. I ask whether this concession extends to young soldiers. I am a little afraid that it does not. If it, does not, I say that half the force of that concession, half the recruiting force of any concession such as issuing blue walking-out uniforms for soldiers, loses its effect because of the trouble of the military police.
Here I know I am treading on dangerous military ground and that lots of people disagree with me. But I believe that the old system of military policemen marching about and stopping soldiers who are walking out in uniform and asking them for their passes has done as much as anything else to sicken soldiers of their service. One has often seen a young soldier walking out with his best girl, as smart as anything, and

two military policemen pull him up and ask for his leave pass. He gets rather hot and bothered and the girl does not think much of him being stopped by a couple of other men. Then he starts fumbling about for his pass. He does not know where it is and the policeman says, "Wake up, man, wake up."

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Do I understand the hon. Member to say, "his best girl"?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Yes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: How many has he got?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Perhaps my hon. Friend has several best girls, but I was thinking of the soldier who has only one. My point is that when the military policeman pulls up the young soldier and perhaps addresses to him some such expression as "Wake up, we cannot stop here all night," in the tone of the barrack square, and that is done in front of a man's best girl, it is extremely offensive, and it makes that young soldier swear an oath, first, that he will never walk out in uniform if he can wear plain clothes, and, secondly, that he will never recommend his best friend to join the Army. I do not want to make too much of that point. I am not suggesting that all military policemen are tactless, but one tactless man can do more harm than 20 good men can do good. I believe my right hon. Friend has a way out of the difficulty by extending the system of allowing soldiers to go out till one o'clock without a leave pass at all, even young soldiers just after they have joined.
There are lots of other points one would like to raise about conditions in the Forces, but it is more than six years since I left the Army, and I was then only in a very junior rank, so I will pass on to my third big point, which is the prospect of a soldier getting a job at the end of his time. I believe it is impossible to over-rate the importance of this point. What one wants to aim at is to awaken in the public mind appreciation of the fact that the best channel to a good job for life is a period of service in the Forces. To a certain extent that is so. I know that, when I was soldiering, if you asked half a dozen recruits at the Guards Depot what they were going to do after they had finished their time, apart from those who were going to follow their fathers


and uncles in a profession, three out of four would give the answer, "Try the police." "Try the Metropolitan police." "Try the county police." They would try for the police every time. I believe that their motive in joining the Army was largely that they wanted to be sure of getting into the police at the end. If we could get further towards having the Forces recognised as the best channel for a good job, it would be doing more than anything else to recruit not only the type of man who cannot get work elsewhere but the very best type of man. The status of the Army now is not as high as I should like to see it. I think it should be raised and that is the best way to raise it. When you see soldiers walking along you think, first of all, how smart they are—and they are smart, too. Then you think, in a couple of years' time what is the betting that those fellows are going to be scrambling for a job in civil life, perhaps with a worse chance of getting it than their contemporary who has not served his country at all. Instead of rather envying the soldier, one's thoughts turn much more to pity.
I feel that the Government must overcome that. I think the answer is to guarantee men of very good or exemplary character 'a job. If it is possible, nothing short of a guarantee should do. It is all very well to talk about the satisfactory results of the training centres, and I should be the last to minimise them, but a prudent man would much rather have a definite guarantee than any number of assurances. I think I know how it could be done. I do not think the War Office can do it alone, but certainly it is in the power of the Government to do it. They can do it in two ways. The first is to make even more certain than they do now that all possible Government jobs go to ex-service men. I should like them to go so far in. making it certain that ex-service men get Government jobs as to make it a sine qua non for any candidate for a suitable job, in the same way that a candidate for 'a post as higher grade teacher has to have an M.A. degree. When a candidate comes forward, the first question is, "Have you got your degree? Only people with a degree can get this job." In the same way I should like applicants to be asked, "Are you an ex-service man?" and to be told, if they are not, "You are

wasting your time here. This job is for ex-service men." The Government could go perhaps a little further than they do. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) asked the other day:
whether there is any reason why the 1,615 vacancies for postmen and porters filled by the appointment of Post Office servants, mainly boy messengers, in 1935 should not in future years be filled by ex-service men of good character?
Major TRYON: The Post Office undertakes to provide a permanent career for boy messengers, and it also allocates 50 per cent. of the vacancies for postmen and porters to ex-service men. This is a long-standing arrangement, and I could not contemplate a system of blind-alley employment for boys, which would be involved by allocating all the postmen and porter vacancies to ex- service men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1936; col. 859, Vol. 318.]
I am not asking that a blind-alley system should be opened up to boys in the postal service, but I would ask the Postmaster-General whether he could not recruit boys into the Post Office on the definite understanding that they will break their service in the Post Office for a period of service in the Army and thereafter be guaranteed permanent service in the Post Office. The Post Office is one of the Departments that will be least inconvenienced in time of emergency by its reservists being called up, because there are so many jobs in the Department which could be filled by women or old men. I am not suggesting that the Government themselves should provide jobs for the whole of the 17,000 men who leave the service annually. Something more must be done. An appeal could be made to employers. I think it is a mistake just to appeal to the patriotism of employers. If you do that, and if there is, as in the case of Territorials, a good deal of inconvenience, and indeed financial loss sometimes, in allowing men to go to camp, it means that the patriotic firms are losing and non-patriotic firms are gaining. The appeal ought to carry with it some reward for the action of the employers.
My suggestion is to extend the system of the King's Roll. I think that well over 20,000 firms are on the King's Roll, and they undertake to employ not less than 5 per cent. of disabled ex-service men. In return, the Government undertake to give them preference, other things being


equal—and the preference is very considerable—in all Government contracts. I wonder if it will be possible to extend that system and have 10 per cent., not only of disabled but of all kinds of ex-service men, including Territorials. I leave the figure to those who are qualified to judge but something like 10 per cent. might, with the enormous quantities of Government orders that there are at present, go a long way to providing jobs for ex-Regulars when they leave the Army. If local authorities could be persuaded or encouraged to adopt the King's Roll system, that should carry us very much further, too. I am not satisfied that that reward alone would be sufficient for employers of Territorials. I think a further incentive is required. Nor am I quite satisfied that the concessions made to Territorials in the last Army Estimates, welcome as they were, were in themselves a quite sufficient incentive to recruits.
My last suggestion is that the War Office should undertake to frank the National Health Insurance cards, on behalf of employers and employes, of every man who serves in the Territorial Force. I believe the cost would be £4 Cs. 8d. per head and the benefit to the employer would be roughly £which is about equivalent to the week's wages that we expect the employer to pay his man when he is not getting service from him. I put forward these suggestions for what they are worth. I do not think this is a matter that the War Office alone can solve. I think the whole Government has to contribute. I hope I am right in believing that it will have the support of most Members in every part of the House. After all, I think most of us want our country to be properly defended and want the voluntary system of recruiting to be preserved.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. GIBBINS: I do not want to see a lack of recruits, but what has surprised me for many years is that so many join the Army under existing conditions. My experience, living in a working-class district, is that the man who took the shilling in the old days was the man who lost his job. Most men who join the Army do so because there is nothing else to do. Most of them have been driven to serve, not because they desired to do so, but because they felt

that there was the chance of a job with food, clothes, and a home.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: If that is the case, how does the hon. Member explain the large number of cases in which generations have served in the ranks—grandfathers, their sons, and their sons again, in the same regiment?

Mr. GIBBINS: I know cases of that kind, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not argue that that represents anything but a small proportion of the men who actually join the Army. No one can dispute that the first thing a young fellow thinks of when he has lost his job is to join the Army. I am not in any way disparaging the Army as a career, but we do not want to make it a last resort. We want to ensure that at the end of his service a man stands at least an equal chance in competing with other industries. Take my own case. I had to serve six or seven years apprenticeship as a boilermaker, and I received only a handful of coppers for doing so. There are groups of men to-day serving apprenticeships who would be willing to do that time in the Army if the prospects while serving and when they came out of the Army were reasonable. At least, that has been my experience. Why should the soldier, the man upon whom we shall have to depend in the end, be the loser and be included among the lowest-paid workers? The conditions are better now and are improving, but even with these improvements by far the largest number of men who join the Army to-day do so because of economic conditions. If men were given the same opportunities in the Army as in private life many men would join the Army. If you could make life in the Army well paid and well looked after, men would not want to come out of it it under any conditions. Owing to the handful of coppers they receive, men leave the Forces after serving for seven or 12 years with very little to live upon, and have very often to take the lowest-paid jobs. It is to be wondered at that men are not willing to spend a considerable period-of their lives in the Army and become trained as soldiers when at the end of their service they find that they have wasted their time and lost the opportunity of getting on in life to the same extent that others have who have stopped at home?
Another point which the Secretary for War should keep in mind—and it was mentioned by the hon. Member opposite —is that relating to the young soldier who gets married. I have raised this question in the House in the past. A soldier meets a girl and they marry, and he often has to serve knowing that his wife has to go to the parish to be maintained. Surely you cannot ask men to join the Army under those conditions. As chairman of a relief committee, I have had this position brought to my attention over and over again. A woman of 21 or 22 with her baby is left behind by the husband and we have to make an allowance out of public funds to keep the wife and child while the man is giving his time—and, if need be he will give his life—in the service of his country. I know that concessions have been made in regard to marriage allowances, but there are numbers of cases where young fellows have to carry on until they finish their seven years' service, and all the time their wives are receiving perhaps 10s, or 15s, from the parish. If you want men to join the Army, do you expect them to receive such treatment? I would not advise them to fill up the gaps in recruitment when they are likely to meet with that fate.
We have also to consider the necessity of treating a man somewhat in the way he is treated in the workshop. I have come across many cases in my brief experience of men who have been injured in the service, some of them permanently injured. What do you give them? A few pounds. They come out of the Service, and they cannot even compete in healthy work. Do you think that is an encouragement for men to join the Services? Take the position of parents who encourage their sons to join. I had the case brought to my notice recently of a young fellow who went to India with the Forces. He was sent home and died here, and his parents did not get a penny. If such a thing happened in industrial life there would have been compensation and legal obligations to be met, but in the case of the soldier, "No." You must give to the man who says, "I think that this is a career I would like," the obligations and privileges enjoyed in every other walk of life. I do not think it is too much

to ask that when a man joins the Army he should get not the lowest possible pay, but at least the pay received by semiskilled labourers. You only give him a few coppers to-day. It robs a man of his manhood when he becomes a soldier under such conditions.
It may be said that a man ought to join the Army rather than suffer unemployment. Why should he? At least he has freedom and liberty and as much money as he would have in the Army. You want men to enter the Army and become disciplined, smart and well trained, but they have to go about with a few shillings in their pockets, most of them waiting for the day when they can get out of the Army. I suggest that the Army can be made an attractive profession, and that there are many men who would like the life. I have had some service, and I know that it affords opportunity for enterprise and adventure for young fellows, and I believe there are many who would say that they would like the job, if when they joined they would be able to retain the privileges and safeguards they had enjoyed outside in many ways. if they felt that they would be properly looked after in case of accident and sickness, and realised that when the end of their service came they would at least have something to which to look forward. It is not too soon that consideration of the lives of these men should be taken into account. They are good fellows, even when they join because they cannot get a job. We should not compel men to join the Army merely because they want food, shelter and clothing. Men ought to join because they feel it to be an honourable profession. If it is an honourable profession, then they ought to be honourably paid and provided for.

4.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. CLARKE: As a newcomer speaking for the first time in this House, I ask the indulgence of hon. Members. One branch of recruiting, namely, that for the Territorial Army, is a matter with which I have been in close contact for a good many years, and I venture humbly to set forward, as a small contribution to this Debate, certain views which have been formed by my experience. It appears to me that its success depends primarily upon four things—the


benevolent assistance of the War Office, the activity of County Territorial Associations, the co-operation of employers, and lastly, the work done by serving officers and men, which, I think, is definitely the most important and the most productive of results. With regard to the War Office, I feel that there have been many indications in recent months that the Territorial Army is receiving a great deal of help. The restoration of bounties has helped recruiting very much, and the promise of increased and more modern equipment is heartening everybody. In this connection it is realised that the needs of the Regular Army must come first, but even an instalment of that equipment given at the present time would be greatly welcomed by all ranks.
The County Territorial Associations under Territorial Regulations are, of course, the authorities responsible for recruiting aided by the adjutants and permanent staff of the units concerned, but the expenses to which they are put, for which they receive no special grants, are often such that they cannot do as much as they ought to do. I feel that a special recruiting grant, in addition to the general funds they receive at present, would be of very considerable value. I earnestly hope that the 2½per cent. cut made in the economy years off all grants to associations will be restored as soon as it is possible to do so. To-day most employers are helpful, and in my experience when approached in the right way and when as much notice as possible of the dates of camp has been given to them, they have proved helpful in the past. It must be realised that many of them, particularly small employers, have real difficulty in letting men go. At the same time, I do not think that this applies in the case of public bodies. Public bodies should release men for the full period of camp without withholding their pay or infringing upon their normal holiday. I say that with some hesitation now after the answer which was given to a question. I do not know about service in the Treasury, but certainly in the humbler spheres of public bodies, the county councils and bodies of that sort, there is really no reason why men should not be spared. Another thing that should be remembered is the conditions on mobilisation. To married men particularly the question of what will

happen to their wives is of very definite interest and importance. I know of one county council which has already resolved that on embodiment any of its servants that are serving in the Territorial Army will have their pay and allowances made up to what they are receiving in civil life. That is a good example, and I wish that this practice could become general.
In addition to the four factors which I have mentioned, the response of the individual ought to be considered. In the past it has not been an unusual question asked by those who saw men of the Territorial Army giving up their Sundays, holidays and evenings to training, "Why are they doing it?" I think that the reasons are various. In the first place, quite a number join because they like soldiering. They are not fire-eaters, but the life of a soldier really appeals to them. Many of them would, if circumstances permitted, probably become regular soldiers. These men, who have a natural inclination towards soldiering, form a very valuable if not the most valuable source of recruits of the Territorial Army. From among them as a rule spring those key individuals who in the Territorial Army, as in any voluntary organisation, form the pivots or nuclei round which the whole organisation revolves. The best method of encouraging men of this sort to join is by keeping contact between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army as close as possible, and by providing really modern equipment. I would like to render a great tribute to the Regular Army for all the sympathy, understanding and help that they give to their younger brothers of the Territorial' Army.
The matter of equipment is, I feel, of paramount importance. Incidentally, I believe that recruiting for the Territorial Army could be a good deal helped if there were more machine gun, trench mortar and anti-tank sections and detachments. Rightly or wrongly—I think probably wrongly—young men to-day are apt to look upon the rifle and bayonet as somewhat primitive weapons. For the same reason, a degree of mechanisation, with its inducement of being taught to drive, is definitely attractive. Another large group of men—perhaps the largest, at any rate, in ordinary times—who have


joined the Territorial Army are those who have been attracted by what for want of a better term I call "the club spirit." Actual clubs are run in connection with many, in fact, most Territorial units, but what I refer to is the spirit of comradeship and the team spirit which exists among the voluntary units, particularly during annual training. Men at no cost to themselves, or a very small one, get an opportunity of doing something which gives them a complete change from the ordinary routine of their lives, and of doing it among men of their own age. From my own experience I know that many life-long friendships and interests which continue long after their service is ended are started in this way in Territorial units.
There is a wider educative value too, in such service in the Territorial Force which I have heard spoken of appreciatively by employers. To give further encouragement to this spirit several things are necessary, and I am afraid that most of them will cost money. A great many drill halls to-day are out-of-date. This is a most important matter, because in our large towns particularly there are a tremendous lot of rival attractions. We want a good deal more facilities for gymnastic exercises and opportunities for indoor sport. Apart from drill halls a good deal could be done by fostering the esprit de corps or, as I have loosely termed it, the club spirit. The preservation of distinctive uniforms where such exist, the avoidance as far as possible of the transference of men from one unit to another, or even the possibility of transfer, and the encouragement of kindred organisations, like Old Comrades' Associations, all greatly assist. A really good unit, like a really good club, seldom lacks members.
There are also a large number of men who join because they want to do something for their country. When war is a possibility this source of recruits usually increases, but I am afraid that to-day, considering the state of Europe, it is not nearly as strong as one would like to see it. It doe's appear that as the obligations of the State to the individual increase, there is a paradoxical tendency for the individual to consider himself as less and less responsible to the State. Although the atmosphere towards joining

the Territorial Army has materially improved, it is not as good as one would like to see it. Something does definitely hold young men back. I know of a good many instances where firms have given every facility and offered every inducement to their employes to join, but the response has been very disappointing. How can we get a better atmosphere? Other speakers have suggested ways.
One hesitates to recommend those forms of propaganda which are used by some continental countries, for fear of being considered a Fascist, but there is one method which I should like to put forward, because I do not think that it has ever been tried. Have the great women's organisations in this country ever been approached on the subject? Has their help ever been asked for? We know that men of recruitable age are very much influenced by their womenfolk. We must never forget that women have to make considerable sacrifices themselves when their men folk join the Territorial Army. Holidays and evenings are curtailed, wages may be lost and time has to be spent alone. All the same, I have reason to suppose that if they were approached and a clear statement of the needs of the country was put to them, the response would be good.
To sum up, I know that recruiting for the Territorial Army has been considerably better in the last few months, but the Force is still considerably short of establishment, and that establishment is rather a meagre one compared with war strength. To-day the Territorial force is receiving much help from the Government, from the War Office, from employers, and from the general public, and a little more effort on the lines that have been suggested to-night would definitely and very quickly bring it up to strength. I should like to say a few words to those who hesitate to join the Territorial Army to-day but who in the event of war would enlist at once. They can joint any unit to-day, in company with their friends. They will receive equipment and uniform forthwith, and, in the event of war and the consequent expansion of the Forces, they would probably get accelerated rate of promotion, whereas if they wait until the last moment they will have to be drafted to where men are most needed at the moment, they will go there by themselves, or in company with strangers, and they may have to wait some considerable


time before they get arms, equipment or even accommodation.
I would conclude by quoting a few lines from a recruiting effort made rather more than 2,000 years ago, which has just as much point to-day as then. Demosthenes, urging his country to mobilise against Philip of Macedon, said:
Victory is certain if the rich will be ready to contribute and the young to take the field; in one word, if you will be yourselves, and banish those hopes winch every single person entertains, that the active part of public business may lie upon others, and he remain at ease.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: Any hon. Member speaking for the first time, and particularly making a speech such as we have just heard, is entitled to receive the congratulations of some senior Member of the House. I feel it almost an impertinence on my part to offer congratulations to an hon. and gallant Member who has the actual seniority or juniority of myself but who, solely by reason of the fact that lie belongs to a party which is temporarily rather larger than the one to which I belong, has not had as many opportunities of addressing the House as I have. But I feel certain that any hon. Member who followed the hon. and gallant Member, whether junior or senior, would have congratulated him very sincerely on a speech full of practical suggestions and based upon experience.
No one can fail to notice—and attention was drawn to it by the Mover of the Motion—the difference in recruiting for the Army compared with the Navy and the Air Force. It was rightly suggested by the Mover that some reason for this difference may be attributable to the excitement of the two latter Services as compared with the Army, and the facilities they give for training. There is another reason. Throughout the country there is a tendency to believe that in the Navy and the Air Force in the event of a major war a man has a chance of survival in not too uncomfortable surroundings. There is also a feeling, based upon the appalling experiences of the last War, although it may not be based on statistics, that the life of the private soldier in the Army is nasty, brutish and, above all, extraordinarily short, and that in joining the Army if there is another war men are undertaking to face appalling risks.
I agree with the speeches that have been made about the advantage to be derived from improved conditions in the Army, and I wish that our Amendment, which is not to be called, had been framed so as to attach itself to the Motion at the same point at which the Opposition Amendment can be attached. I admit that we have made a mistake in that regard. While we agree with all that has been said about the importance of improving conditions, there is a bigger issue to-day to which I would call attention, and that is that we believe that the people of this country will not face the rather dull life and discipline of the Army and, above all, the risks of death, unless they are able to feel that they are facing those risks for a really worth while purpose. I hope that the Minister and the House will be patient with me in the expression of this view, because there is a tendency on the Government side and in the Government Press to regard all those who do not wholeheartedly support the Government recruiting campaign as party politicians, working for party purposes. I want to give an assurance that that is not so.
We feel a genuine difficulty about the last line of the Motion, but we have given guarantees of our bona-fides on these benches, because we have throughout, reluctantly but consistently, voted for every arms Estimate which has been presented to the House. We have done that in spite of very serious adverse criticism from the perfectly sincere and thoroughly patriotic citizens by whose votes I and my friends were sent to this House. We have voted for the Army Estimates, although we believe that the appalling risks against which we are now arming could have been avoided if the Government had had the courage to face a very much smaller risk in December, 1935. We appreciate that those risks in 1935 included the risk of war, and we seriously wonder, seeing that the Government refused to risk a ship in the interests of collective security in that case, what are the circumstances in which they would risk a ship in the interests of collective security? We shall be told that assurances have been given in the most explicit terms that the recruits will never be used except for the purpose of national or Imperial defence, and for collective security.
You do not create a system by using a name, and if we cut out the name and


come to the fact, it does appear that if Danzig were attacked we should apply the principle of collective security and do nothing unless everybody else cooperated. If Czechoslovakia were attacked, we should have to keep in step with the slowest, in the name of collective security. If Poland were attacked, we should be told that in the name of collective security we could not do anything alone. If Rumania were attacked, we should be told that in the name of collective security we should have to wait for the unanimous decision of the League. But if Belgium were attacked the cry would be: "Collective security. Come in. Take up your arms. Lay down your lives for collective security. Never mind that one or two nations who ought to be coming in are not corning in. Pay no attention to the fact that many who ought to be coming in on our side are, unfortunately, not coming in on our side. In the name of collective security, come in and fight for Belgium."

Mr. PALMER: Surely the hon. Member is in favour of a purely international military force with an obligation on the part of everyone?

Mr. ACLAND: I am going to make that point clear. I fear that what I have said is, in fact, what would happen. That is not collective security. It does not give us a chance of securing peace or hold out to the potential recruit a cause for which it is worth enduring discipline and death, and we still hope that the Government will adopt the policy which was clearly stated in this House by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in the Debate on foreign affairs on 5th November. I want to warn the Government and the Secretary of State for War that these apprehensions about the purpose of the Government cannot be dismissed by barking at them in a parade ground or barrack square style. They must be treated seriously, because they are sincerely held not by a few but by many. Many who now support the Government's recruiting campaign, or who are neutral, will be bound to change their views adversely if they find that within the next few months their hopes are disappointed, and that the Government are making no serious effort to bind together all the peaceful nations of Europe in a carefully pre-arranged

scheme by which the forces, military and economic, of all shall co-operate in the event of aggression against anyone.
We do not say that plans should be drawn up by which the military forces of all shall be brought into immediate operation in the event of aggression, but that plans should be drawn up in advance by all the peaceful nations to decide in the event of aggression which nations shall render military assistance and which economic assistance, and that these plans should show a real prospect of being strong enough to avoid aggression. If such plans were drawn up, if it were known that the Government were drawing up such plans, I think that the greater part of the difficulties about recruiting, at any rate the difficult atmosphere which now surrounds the problem, would quickly disappear. If it does not become clear that efforts on these lines are being made I fear that no improvement in conditions will be sufficient to overcome the difficult atmosphere in which we now find ourselves.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I should like to have the pleasure of adding to the words of congratulation of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) in regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke). The hon. and gallant Member will find one thing in this House. It does not matter whether the speaker is nervous or not, he will always find that the House will pay respect to one who is addressing it on a subject of which he shows himself to be a master, which was the nature of the speech which the hon. and gallant Member addressed to the House this afternoon. The Debate has been very refreshing, because no speech has been delivered which has not contained quite a number of concrete suggestions for improving the lot of the soldier and, therefore, the prospects of recruiting.
Before entering on the rather wider aspect of the subject, I should like to add two or three suggestions of my own. I can never understand why the beds in barracks should not have little cubicles around them so that the soldier should at least have the privacy which a public school thinks is the right of a boy of 14. I cannot understand why if the Royal Marines can have an evening meal pro-


vided for them, it should not be provided for the soldier in the Army. Again, I cannot understand why in the Army a soldier is only recruited at 18 years of age, whereas in the Royal Marines they recruit them at 17, and are able to obtain a larger number than they would at the older age.
I am glad to notice a certain change in the note of the speeches of the Secretary of State for War in the last few weeks, and I have no doubt it will be continued this afternoon. He certainly was not happy in the manner he dealt with this subject during the early part of his tenure of office. He managed to get involved in a series of rather highly strung recriminations with bishops and canons and pacifists, and members of the Labour party, whereas the real difficulty which confronts him is due to the fact that the young men of this country are on strike against the utterly callous attitude which the Army takes towards them. In fact, they are regarded as cannon-fodder, and in their after-careers there has always been complete indifference. In the long run this refusal to recruit in these circumstances will ultimately be to the general good, because this strike on the part of the young men has already led to many of the reforms which have been mentioned this afternoon, such as free passes and the right to go out in mufti. Had it not been for this difficulty in recruiting we should not have had many of the refreshing suggestions which have been put before the House this afternoon. The central problem is to provide the soldier with a career after leaving the Army. It does not seem to be an insoluble problem fo provide 12,000 jobs each year for men leaving the Army.

Mr. PALMER: Seventeen thousand.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I thought the number was 12,000.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): Seventeen thousand leave the Army, and 5,000 get jobs.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not going into the narrower aspect of that problem, but, personally, I think that this difficulty of recruiting will not be finally met until the larger issues behind it have been seriously thought out and a conclusion

reached by the War Office. Behind this issue of recruiting is the whole question of the continuance of the Cardwell system, which was established mainly to provide a force for the Indian Frontier, and then by a kind of by-product to provide an expeditionary force for European warfare. The Cardwell system was created 60 years ago when there was no idea in anyone's mind that we should be confronted with a war of the type we had 18 years ago, and the question whether it is suitable to modern problems must be thoroughly examined. Incidentally, the Cardwell system sacrifices the recruit to its own requirements, and for that reason the alternative suggestions which have been mentioned this afternoon might be examined—a long service Army, with a career, mainly for the purposes of the Indian Frontier, and a short service Army recruited as a European army which would not interfere seriously with the soldiers' prospects on return to civilian life.
The Secretary of State stated in the last Debate that an inquiry was being made into the Cardwell system. I was surprised that such a far-reaching statement as that should have been thrown across the Table of the House as an interjection of about eight words in the middle of a speech, and I am doubtful from what was subsequently said whether the inquiry is of the kind which the importance of the subject requires. I gather that the inquiry is to be conducted purely by Service officers. I am sure that an issue of this kind, which involves no purely technical considerations but in which great questions of policy are involved—the role of the Army in a European war—you will not get the right decision until you call in the service of the civilian mind. I can predict in advance that if the right hon. Gentleman leaves this inquiry purely to senior officers of the Service, so far as any fundamental change in the system is concerned, the reply will be in the negative. The Cardwell system was the product of the civilian mind, one of a series of reforms which Mr. Cardwell carried through in the teeth of the opposition of the senior officers of the Army in his day. The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article in the "Royal Engineers Journal" in a speech he made about a year ago. On his advice I have read the


article, and I find that it ends up with a peroration in which the writer points out that he has made many rather novel suggestions and predicts that they will be all turned down if the verdict is to be given upon them by the general Service mind.
In addition to that suggestion with regard to an inquiry, I would like to deal with another proposal involved in the Motion which I do not think any speaker has yet developed. It is the proposal that there should be careers, not only after the service, but during the service of the soldiers. I think the Mover said a few words with regard to that suggestion, but I noticed that other speakers who followed him with fundamental proposals avoided that particular suggestion. I would like to deal with the question of promotion from the ranks. In my view, there are few professions in the country in which class distinctions, and what is really class snobbery, have so long survived as in the British Army. When I was a boy, I used to ask officers why it was that officers all seemed to come from one class and soldiers from another, and I always got the same reply, "My boy, the British soldier prefers to be led by a gentleman rather than by one of his own class." I venture to say that that is the prevailing opinion in any ordinary officers' mess to-day.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall how many generals and field-marshals have been drawn direct from the ranks during the last 10 years?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I know some have, but I know also that it is an absolutely insignificant proportion when compared with the number which has come from the wealthy public schools. I will enter into this question more fully and substantiate my arguments. I do not believe any officer will deny that the sentiment I have quoted is the prevailing doctrine in any officers' mess to-day, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) will deny it.

Sir A. WILSON: I deny it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will get a majority of the ex-officers in this House to share his

opinion. The whole system presumes that it is so. The Officers' Training Corps is based on the presumption that officers will come from the public schools and soldiers from the elementary schools, and obviously that is the doctrine which prevails everywhere. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to consider the position. If a boy comes from a public school, he may become an officer in the Army and have the lives of men dependent upon his wisdom, if he is intellectually capable of obtaining a school certificate. If he is not intellectually capable of obtaining a school certificate, he may still become an officer in the Army by nomination from the War Office, provided he conies from a certain group of public schools. Therefore, the position is that men can become officers in the Army, even though they would not be accepted in subordinate positions in Harrods Stores and the Gas Light and Coke Company, which will not take boys who have not passed the school certificate examination.
What is the position of a soldier who tries to rise from the ranks? He has to pass the first-class Army certificate examination, the standard of which is far above the school certificate standard—it is the matriculation standard. The man who goes into the Army and tries to rise from the ranks has to have higher qualifications than the boy from the public school, in addition to having shown by the promotion he has received—for he has no chance of taking the examination unless he is a sergeant—that he has the necessary military qualifications as well. I may say that even when he has passed his examination and has been promoted to sergeant, he has very little chance of being selected to be a commissioned officer. In fact, the whole system of promotion from the ranks is now largely used, not to promote the genuine, able soldier who has come from the poorer families, but to provide a kind of second back door for the public school boy who has failed to get in by any other means. I notice that no ex-officer who speaks ever raises this question, however enlightened he is on other issues of Army reform. Even the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made a most refreshing speech in seconding the Motion did not deal with that part of the Motion.
The objection that has been raised—that the Army must be a class instru-


ment if it is to succeed—is exactly the same type of objection as was raised when the system of purchasing commissions in the Army was abolished. The old officers said at that time that if the system by which men could purchase their commissions and even their promotion was abolished, the type of officers would be changed and the Army would go to the dogs. That view of the general service mind which tried to prevent that reform is the prevailing view with regard to making a career in the Army open to the talents of the whole of the people to-day. I do not believe this class distinction can long survive the new type of soldier now being called into existence. At the end of last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of. State for War announced schemes for the mechanisation of the cavalry and the infantry which are certainly the largest changes in the Army since the close of the War. Those schemes for mechanisation involve a revolution in the type of soldier required, and one cannot conceive that soldiers of the Rudyard Kipling variety could possibly carry out the duties of soldiers in the mechanised Army. Soldiers of the Rudyard Kipling variety would almost have the appearance of primitive men.
Let hon. Members consider what the right hon. Gentleman is asking. In five years the infantry soldier will have to be an expert with the rifle—which is nowadays a most delicate instrument—heavy machine guns, Lewis guns, mortars, anti-tank guns, Bren guns, armoured cars, and so on. He will have to be familiar with all those things. The soldier will now be required to be a highly-skilled mechanician, and it is fantastic to say that to-day one could not get all the officers required from that class of men for the modern, scientific, competent army which we are now establishing. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will now set up a committee to inquire into this issue, and that on that committee he will include a number of men who come from civilian occupations.

5.25 p.m.

Sir A. WILSON: I would like to begin by dealing very briefly with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), who observed that the present foreign policy of the

Government does not hold out to potential recruits a cause for which it is worth while to endure discipline. I listened to those words with amazement. Is not the defence of Great Britain, is not the defence of the British Empire, is not the defence of democracy in Europe—if we believe in it—a cause for which it is worth while to endure discipline? I listened to the hon. Member's words with amazement, and I heard nothing in what he said afterwards which in any way bore out those remarks.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) made great play on the extraordinarily high qualifications required for a first-class certificate of education. I missed a portion of his speech because I went to the Vote Office to obtain the last available report, and I find that last year there were some 18,000 men, or 10 per cent. of the whole, who were in possession of a first-class certificate of education, and rather more than 1,000 who were in possession of a special certificate of education, whatever that may be. If those figures are accurate and we are speaking of the same thing, there is clearly a very large number of men who have found it possible to get this first-class certificate of education. I am in no way prepared to admit that the officers' mess of the right hon. Gentleman's imagination takes a jaundiced view of men who have come from the ranks. On the contrary, my impression—which goes back as far as 1902—is that there were very few, if any, officers' messes which did not take considerable care and make every effort to make life as easy and as attractive as possible for men who came from the ranks. They were dealt with in every way with greater consideration than young men who came direct from the public schools.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for War will tell us how many men have taken commissions through the ranks during the past few years. I am given to understand that the number becomes larger every year. I know myself of three men who have entered the Army with the specific object of getting commissions in due course, and nothing they have told me during the last three years has given me any reason to think that they will not achieve their desire. They do not think the way is closed, and that,


as far as I can gather from numerous conversations with soldiers, is certainly the general belief. The way is open, although there are many—and I am one of them—who would like it opened rather more widely.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley spoke of the speeches of the Secretary of State having changed for the better during the past few months. I can only say that speeches from the Opposition benches also have changed for the better during the past few months. I believe the Secretary of State for War was right when he deprecated the speeches that were being made in certain quarters with regard to recruiting, but I am the first to welcome the type of speeches we have had from the Opposition benches to-day. They have been most helpful, and indeed, in the case of the first hon. Member who spoke from those benches, I have seldom listened to a series of more instructive suggestions. I support the Motion before the House, but I wish it referred to the Fighting Forces instead of the Defence Forces. It is really essential, if we are to get men to fight, that we should tell them that they have got to fight, and not hide ourselves behind the word "Defence." The essence of defence is to be ready to fight. Let us speak of the Fighting Forces as we always did, and not the Defence Forces. The best form of defence—the only form of defence for most purposes—is attack. The sooner we recognise it and say it honestly, the better.
The highway into the Army, Navy or Air Force is through the recruiting office. I was in a large city a few weeks ago and I visited three recruiting offices there, one for each of the Forces. They were situated in obscure streets, and were by no means easy to find. Two policemen from whom I sought directions did not know the way to more than one of them. I found them on first floors and not on ground floors. They were blowsy and dirty, the posters displayed were inherently unsuitable, as well as grimy, and the whole atmosphere was as discouraging to the potential recruit—and I had one with me—as it well could be. I would urge on the Government the desirability of establishing one recruiting office in each city for the three services. Let each office be situated in a

main street and made to look attractive. I also suggest that the hours during which recruits can be examined ought to be extended until well after the ordinary working hours. At present, most recruiting offices shut down just about the time when men come out of work.
So far from it being true that the Army is the refuge of the unemployed man who does not know what to do, 80 per cent. of those who join the Army come out of direct employment. They are men of the adventurous type. They are tired of and "fed-up" with the routine and drudgery of the factory. They want a new and a more adventurous life, and accordingly they go from their employment into the Army. But it is not made easy for them to do so, when the recruiting offices are closed, as I gather they are, at five or six o'clock in the evening and men cannot be medically examined after three or four o'clock. That is not right. We want, as I say, a, single recruiting office for all three Services with a medical staff at each office.
That brings me to my next point. The present medical tests ought to be reconsidered in view of the real needs of the Services. There ought not to be a uniform standard for every unit and every part of every unit. A large number, possibly from 5 to 10 per cent. of the men in every unit, must always be employed on what may be called menial duties such as the carrying of coal, and so forth. The cleaning of barracks and the general routine of barrack life involve the employment of a considerable number of men as cooks and in other capacities. Is it not worth while considering a special medical standard for them? I think the majority of those rejected in the past 12 months have been rejected on the ground that they had defective teeth. That is really a reflection upon Army diet which is wholly unjustified. Army diet is not what it used to be. Even in the field to-day soldiers do not get what used to be called "hardtack" unless in exceptional circumstances. I submit that the requirement in regard to teeth is out of date. I have known half a score of men who were rejected as recruits on health grounds, and who have been engaged in hard and continuous physical labour ever since with never a day's illness—men of whom any army would be proud.
I endeavoured a few weeks ago to get a man into the Navy. He was a born fishermen, physically a magnificent specimen and he wished to become a stoker, but he was rejected on the ground that he was colour-blind. I found that he was able to distinguish ordinary colours as easily as I could, but he failed to pass the very difficult test with lights to which he was submitted. That test may be necessary in the case of signallers or able seamen, but is it equally necessary in the case of a stoker? I am not so sure. I only submit that as a point for consideration. A number of the other tests seem to me very drastic and not very intelligent, and I suggest that there should be a comprehensive civil inquiry into the whole working of these tests to ascertain how far, if at all, they should be made rigid. There ought to be some elasticity in the case of a man who, physically fit in every other respect, has one defect. Surely the Army or the Navy could find room for such men somewhere.
So far from the voluntary system having failed, there are still three man applying for admission, to the Army for every one who is accepted. The voluntary system has not failed, but when a man has got through all the barriers I have described and has got into the Army, what does he find when he wants to go on leave? Three-quarters of the Army are now located in one quarter of England, and that is the quarter from which the fewest recruits are drawn, and in practice soldiers are normally paying anything from 10s. to 20s. each for their return tickets home when they go on leave. That is a very heavy drain on their pockets. The best recruiting areas are the North-East and North-West, but the great majority of men from those areas are in barracks in the South-Eastern command. There are literally thousands of men from Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire and Yorkshire in Tidworth. They have to pay half the cost of their return tickets to the North when they go on leave, and it is a very heavy tax upon them.
The state of the barracks both abroad and at home has long been a source of criticism in reports on the health of the Army. Half-a-dozen cases have been reported officially of barracks which are positively verminous. The year before last the barracks in Cairo were said to be verminous and verminous they still are.
One of the best results of the movement of troops to near Ismailia is that we shall be able to vacate those barracks which are 100 years old. That is by no means the only case. There are barracks in India which, are 50, 60 or 70 years old and which are really only dormitories for the men, because there is seldom any place in them where men can sit and read or play games. The only place to which a man can go in his leisure time is to the canteen or to his own dormitory The dormitories themselves are indeed light and airy, but they are only dormitories, and I think it would be better if the men had to sleep in rather more close quarters and if they had places well lighted and well aired in which they could sit and read.
As regards the barracks at home, what is the allowance of coal per head per day? It is 10 lbs. I submit that that is inadequate, remembering that if men come into barracks wet there is only one place at which they can dry their clothes, and that is in front of the fire. The lighting is often inadequate for reading purposes, Two of my friends already mentioned who hope to get their commissions and who are by no means given to grumbling, are serving in barracks in the South of England. They tell me that what they suffer most is the absence of any place where they can have light to read. They have to go out of barracks to a village half a mile away in order to find a place where they can read books and they want to study.
These are practical considerations, and I am bound to say that I doubt whether anything short of the civilian mind, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, will tackle some of these practical and. not expensive remedies for the present situation. I went last week to Hounslow to look over the vocational centre there. It is admirable in every respect. It is, I understand, one of three, and I believe that at the present moment one out of, every eight men leaving the Army pass through those Centres. I have seen every Ministry of Labour training centre and I regard these vocational centres as equal to any Ministry of Labour centre, so far as the staff is concerned. Incidentally I wish the Secretary of State would call them "training centres" and not "vocational centres." That is the jargon of the Board of Education which he need not use in this. connection. But


when I turned to inspect the machinery in this Army training centre I was struck by the fact that it was not the modern machinery which is to be found at the Ministry of Labour training centres. Suppose that there are two lads from a distressed area. One of them joins the Army, does his six years and then goes through a training centre. He will be taught on out-of-date machinery which is inadequate to his requirements. His fellow who refuses to join the Army will get six months free in a Ministry of Labour training centre working on far better machinery although he will not be better instructed. The Army training centres have been starved for lack of funds.
I should like the Government as a whole to regard these centres as part of the social services of the nation. l should like to see the cost of them borne not on the Army Vote but on the Ministry of Labour Vote as part of the method adopted by the Government, deliberately, for training men and fitting them for employment. I should like to see the cost of the Army Educational Corps borne upon the Board of Education Vote, and I may say that if the Board of Education got anything like as good value for money as the Army Educational Corps does, we should be a very well educated nation. We ought not to starve the social services of the Army. They are vital for recruiting and they are vital to the national welfare. There is one grave difficulty in connection with trade training centres at this moment. It is practically impossible for any man who is serving abroad to take advantage of them. Admission is virtually restricted to those who are serving at home. Men are being kept abroad for the full seven years—" twisted "as they say for the seventh year, because they have always hoped against hope that the Government would not demand the seventh year. They are kept to the last moment in India, for example, and hardly ever can get into trade training centres. It is the men who have served in India who need the training most, because they have been longest out of touch with civilian employment and will find it most difficult to get jobs.
I support the suggestion of the Seconder of the Motion that the Postmaster-General should insist upon boys

breaking their service, doing their period in the Army and then going back to the Post Office. It would be good for the Post Office and good for the Army. I should like hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to regard the Army, Navy and Air Force as part of the social services of the nation. They provide means whereby men can learn discipline, can consort with each other, can obtain good food, good clothing and a better education than they could get in any other occupation. The number of men who go from the fourth class to the first class of education during their time in the Army is notable. I doubt whether any other service can show anything like the same record of educational progress. There are many disabilities, however, connected with foreign service. I do not think anyone has yet given the Secretary of State for War a full report on the nature of those disabilities. I only know of them by accident, as they exist here and there.
For instance, the number of men disabled by accidents not arising in the course of their duty and sent home maimed for life is large. I believe there are 2,000 or 3,000 such cases every year from the three Services. I know of one case in my own village of a. man who while on foreign service went out shooting with his fellow-soldiers. The men were encouraged by their commanding officer to go out shooting as a break in the deadly routine of barrack life. This man was accidentally shot in the leg by one of his comrades. His leg is now withered and useless, but he can get no pension from the War Office because the accident did not arise out of or in the course of his duty, and he is not covered by any form of insurance. I suggest that men serving abroad should be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy, towards which they might contribute from a quarter to a half, to meet cases of that kind. The friends of a man in that position do not consider the question of whether the accident did or did not arise in the course of his duty. They simply say that he served in the Army and was turned out with a withered leg and no pension, and that does not encourage recruiting.
The real reason why men are not joining in the numbers which ought to be forthcoming, is that they are not


encouraged to do so either by serving soldiers or by ex-soldiers. The proof of that is that although the Air service is getting all the recruits it wants, the Tank Corps is not and yet the Tank Corps is as technical as the Royal Air Force. I venture to say that there is not a man who has served in the Tank Corps who will not have at least as good a chance of getting employment, owing to his practical, expert knowledge, as any man who has served in the Royal Air Force. Men of the Tank Corps tell me that one of the reasons is that there are too many of them on fatigues and not enough of them doing their job. They would like to see another class of man doing the fatigues, and the experts, these fine, keen young men who are anxious to learn all they can about a tank, not have to do the fatigues, such as carrying coal and the like.
I believe we must reconsider the attitude of this House, of the Public Accounts Committee, and of the War Office towards married soldiers. Milton said:
Honest liberty is the greatest foe to dishonest licence.
An increase in the number of men who are allowed to marry on the strength would, I believe, in the long run be of great assistance to the country on the broadest possible view as well as to the Army itself. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I want to see more promotion from the ranks, and I believe it is possible, but the difficulty will not lie in the officers' mess. The difficulty will lie rather with the Treasury and the fact that many, if not most, of these men who will come from the ranks will have family ties, and will expect to be able to contribute something, however little, to the homes from which they were drawn, but the pay of a Second Lieutenant or a Lieutenant in the Army is so small that they will barely be able to live on it, much less contribute from it towards dependants. I would willingly see special allowances given in such cases, for I believe we should encourage recruitment from the ranks, and I believe that the officers' messes would welcome it.
The right to a job is a matter which roust be so frequently in the mind of the Secretary of State for War that I do not propose to say more than a word

about it, but it must be a job and not merely a promise of a job. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman could make closer arrangements with the Postmaster-General for jobs in the telephone engineering department. I believe the Postmaster-General could provide him with at least another 500 vacancies in skilled trades, quite apart from the relatively unskilled and low-paid trades. Every year we pass in this House Bill after Bill conferring on some great public authority a monopoly for doing something or other, and I should like to see an automatic obligation on these public authorities to employ ex-service men. I believe they would willingly do it. Whether it be the beet sugar factories, or the London Passenger Transport Board, whose record, I believe, is excellent, or the railway companies, or the Water Board, or whatever body it might be, if they are going to have rights given them by the State, let us impose upon them this obligation, which they will soon find to be very slight, of employing a proportion of men who have served with the Colours.
As to conditions of service, I will here read parts of a letter written by a serving officer who has first-hand knowledge of his subject. It is as follows:
The obvious answer to, Why are there not sufficient recruits? ' is because the serving soldier does not bring them in. He could if he would. A man makes about 63s. 9d. a month net, but out of this he must make every sort of payment—tailor (all his uniform has to be altered at his expense and kept clean and in repair) 4s., shoemaker 5s., laundry 5s., barber 6d., regimental funds, sports, civilian orderlies in the mess room and sweepers, squadron funds, and a cup of tea in the morning 3s., total 17s. 6d.
The letter continues:
From this you can see that a man makes about 46s. a month, but from this amount he must buy every sort of thing for cleaning his clothes, saddlery, and himself, saddlery, soap, boot polish, knife, fork, and spoon, razor, comb, mug, and so on, ad infinitum, 5s. A man here draws in cash 5s. a week, unless he wants more, so at the end of the month he may have saved £1. I asked a number of men what they did with the 5s. Supper on Wednesday and Saturday accounts for 2s., cinema with a friend 1s. 6d., and the remaining 1s. 6d. was spent in a variety of ways.…People talk about the Army being well fed. They get three meals a day—seven a.m., one o'clock, and five o'clock. Nine p.m. supper, if they want it, and they should, must be bought out of their 5s. I can live on three meals a day, but I have never been starved


or underfed. I am 23 and fully developed. They are 18 to 20 and still growing. Surely they need more food.
The voluntary system has not broken down. There are, I believe, as many men to-day as there were in 1913 and in 1898 ready and anxious to join the Colours, but some of them are held back by a feeling that they will be unable to contribute anything to their homes if they join the Army, others by the feeling that they can do so much better elsewhere that it is not worth the sacrifice, in spite of the life of adventure, while others again are kept back by the bitter feeling that they are being taken out of civil life at the most formative period of their lives and that when they return it will be to the less skilled and lower grades of employment and to those grades which on the average are most likely to suffer from unemployment. If the Secretary of State can remedy that, he will deserve well of this country and of the Army, and I have no doubt, from what I have seen at Hounslow and elsewhere, that he has made a good beginning.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: I have welcomed this Debate, and I do not think I have ever sat and listened to a Debate in which I have heard less with which I have disagreed. Every speaker who has contributed to the Debate has contributed to the cause which every speaker has had at heart, namely, improving recruiting for the Army. I should like to add my congratulations to those that have already been uttered to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke), who made his maiden speech to-day. It is satisfactory to think that at least we have obtained one very satisfactory recruit for the House of Commons.
I do not pretend that the conditions in the Army to-day are satisfactory, but I do hope to be able to make them so, and I therefore welcome suggestions from all quarters of the House as to how that aim may best be accomplished. We all know, or we all should know, why this situation exists to-day and why conditions in the Army have, I think, fallen behind the improvements that have gradually taken place in the conditions of people in civil life. We have, since the War and up to a very recent date, seen

successive Governments pledged to a policy of disarmament, and while we were carrying out that policy it was almost the first necessity of those successive Governments to present in every succeeding year diminished defence Estimates. When we remember what the feeling was, not only in the House of Commons, but also in the country, it would have been almost impossible to justify an increase in arms expenditure. We know that political controversy is not always meticulously fair, and it would have served but little to have pointed to the fact that the increased expenditure was not due to any increase in weapons of war but was being spent on improvements in the social life of the soldier, that new barracks were a big item, that better conditions counted for much of it, and carrying out the kind of suggestions that have been made to-day, nearly all of which, of course, would have necessitated the Army Estimates being slightly larger than in the year before. That explanation would have availed us little. They would have said, "It is only a mask behind which there is an endeavour to improve recruiting, to increase the Forces, and to show to the world that we are not taking disarmament seriously. How can we be, if we are spending more money on armaments every year?"
During the period when the military members of the Army Council and the naval members of the Board of Admiralty were faced with the necessity of reducing expenditure, they naturally went for the things that they thought were essential to the safety of the country and allowed those other things, which were important for the comfort of the men and the conditions in which the men lived to go by the board. Therefore, to-day, when we are faced with a great and rapid advance in the re-equipment of the fighting Services, we are faced simultaneously with the necessity of rapid and great improvement in the conditions under which the men live. I think there has been hardly a suggestion put forward this evening with which I have not had great sympathy. With the majority of them I have been entirely in agreement, and if I am asked why these things have not been done or why they are not being done, I can only reply that while the number of the suggestions made to-day— and, alas, they do not represent all the suggestions that I have received and that


I have considered—is almost unlimited, the amount of money that we have to spend upon them is not unlimited, and therefore it is necessary to sort them out and carefully to consider which should come first and which should come last, which is the more important, and which is the best way of spending the money that is at our disposal. On that, we are busily engaged at the present time. A Cabinet Committee is sitting upon it, and I hope in the very near future we shall be able to make a report as to how we believe conditions in the Army may best be improved; and this Debate will certainly be of assistance in bringing forward the views of the Members of the House of Commons on this important subject.
I have been so much in agreement with what has been said that I shall find very little to say now. The Debate was admirably opened and seconded in speeches on a very high level, which has not been departed from since. If my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) meant that he was putting forward certain suggestions with regard to the abolition of any cut in the pay which recruits receive, that recruits should not be expected to pay out of their own money for objects which they are compelled to obtain—if that was all that he meant, I have great sympathy with his suggestion, but if he suggests that he would favour also something in the nature of a bonus to the recruit on first joining—

Mr. PALMER: Only so that there Would he no disappointment.

Mr. COOPER: If he meant that a man on joining the Army should be presented with a certain sum of money, a sort of enlistment bonus, that, I think, is not a desirable proposal. It is rather in the nature of a bribe, and if a young man of 18 years of age should have a larger sum of money than he has ever been in possession of before, just when he is beginning his career, and when he is surrounded, possibly, by older men who have different ideas as to how that money should be spent, it would perhaps not be a wise thing, either from the point of 'view of the recruit or from the point of view of the Army. The great question to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other hon. Members referred was that of shortening the period of service, a question which is hound up with a re-

consideration of the Cardwell system. It is a question of fundamental importance, and although it needs review and is being reviewed and will be frequently reviewed, it cannot affect our immediate problem, which is to obtain men during the next two or three months. Those are the men on whom we shall have to rely during the next two or three years, for it is during that period that we have to solve the problem of re-equipping our Forces.
The Cardwell system, which has been in existence for 60 years, is the basis of the whole of our Army system, and to change it would involve a radical change. I think, too, that it must necessarily involve increased expenditure, a large proportion of which would fall upon the Government of India. Hon. Members will readily understand the great difficulty of making any proposals at the present time, just when the new Constitution is coming into operation in India, whereby the proportion of their Budget which they spend on defence would be increased. In the central Budget a large percentage, something over 41 per cent., is already devoted to defence. In these conditions, we cannot readily ask India to shoulder a greater share of the burden of expenditure. Therefore, while I agree that the subject is one that deserves careful inquiry, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on reflection that a solution of it is not likely to be obtained in a few weeks or few months.
A committee of the General Staff have been considering it and a preliminary survey has been undertaken to see whether, in the meanwhile, without a complete alteration of the whole system, it might not be possible to shorten the tour of duty in India and send a man for say, four years, instead of six. We are considering that, however, as a separate question, without taking into account the whole question with all its ramifications and effects. I hope that something may possibly be achieved in that direction, because I agree that this long tour of duty is one of the main causes which make men hesitate to join the Army. It will certainly be a far better prospect to put before men if we can offer them so many years at home, a few years in India, and then perhaps —what I should like best—a term of duty again at home before they finally leave


the Service, during which period they can get in touch again with their friends, of whom they may have lost sight while they were abroad, and prepare their way to some extent for reabsorption into civil life.
With regard to Army vocational training centres, I should like to see every man pass through one. The centres would, of course, have to be increased, and I am inclined to share the views of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that it would, on the face of it, be a reasonable proposition that such training centres should be run by the same Department. I am glad that the hon. Member inspected our centre at Hounslow, and I am sure that he would find those at Chisledon and Aldershot equally efficient, although they are not so well equipped because they have not the same funds at their disposal as those that are run by the Ministry of Labour.

Sir A. WILSON: I should be sorry to see them run by the Ministry of Labour. They should be run as military establishments under the War Office.

Mr. COOPER: Does the hon. Member mean that they should be paid for by the Ministry of Labour and run by the War Office?

Sir A. WILSON: Yes.

Mr. COOPER: I am not sure that that proposition would be acceptable. The hon. Member for Winchester said that we should do more than we have done in the way of publicity. There again, publicity costs money, and when you have a limited sum at your disposal it is not possible to devote a great deal to advertising. I feel strongly that the best advertisement is not of very great use unless the article it is advertising is as reliable as the advertisement states. While I fully realise the importance of publicity, I think that the importance of improving conditions comes first. When conditions are improved publicity will be of greater effect, because I hope then that the article we have to sell will be really worth selling and one that we can advertise without fear of falling into the fault which some advertisers occasionally make of over-stating the value of the object.
The admirable speech of the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr.

Anstruther-Gray) put forward many suggestions, which I can assure him will receive the attention of the War Office. He said that one of the things that made men hesitate to join the Army was that in doing so they thought they were taking an irrevocable step, and that if they did not like it they could not after a short experiment retire as they could in civil life. That is true, but I would remind the hon. Member, and other hon. Members who may not be aware of the fact—because this is one of the reforms that has recently been introduced and not perhaps sufficiently advertised—that we have during the last four months started a special reserve of the Infantry which any man can join. A man joins for six months at a depot, does six months' training, and at the end of the period passes into the Reserve and comes up for a fortnight's training a year. There is an opportunity of testing the Army for any man who is prepared to risk six months. It is not a very long period, and if he likes it and is satisfied with the conditions, he can sign on and become a regular soldier in the ordinary way. I am not sure that that scheme has been sufficiently advertised throughout the country. If it had been, I think that the numbers obtained would have been larger. I should have thought that any unemployed man would be prepared to say, "I will give it a trial for six months however, bad it is, I can stick it for that period, and if I like it I can carry on for another period." We have only 1,100 men under this scheme, but, as it has been in existence for only three months, the figures are not sufficient to make one despair. I think that if it were more widely known more advantage would be taken of it. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire, that it is the case that, with the approval of the commanding officer, the leave until 1 a.m. without a pass applies to recruits, in fact to everyone except boys.
The suggestion was made for something in the nature of a King's Roll for employers who encourage their men to join the Territorial Army. We have been considering it for some time. There is a great deal to be said for it, and there are some arguments that have been put forward against it, but I do not think that they are very powerful. On the whole, I am inclined to believe that it


might do some good and I cannot see that it would do much harm. I have found employers up and down the country most willing and eager to co-operate in this business, and I do not think that they are looking forward for reward. I have felt all through this campaign that neither employers nor men want large rewards. The men want justice and fair conditions and the employers want assistance and sympathy. It is much more difficult for some employers than others, especially for small employers in particular kinds of work from which it would be difficult to release men for short periods. It is hard for such employers to encourage their staffs to join the Territorial Army, realising that they may all be called away from the factory for a fortnight at the same time. We have tried to meet that difficulty by a recent decision of the Army Council that in certain cases men will be allowed, instead of attending the ordinary camp, to do their fortnight's training at a depot with a regular unit whenever it may be convenient, and that fortnight's training will count in the same way as if they had been to camp.
The question has also been raised by the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Gibbins) about the extension of the marriage allowance to all men over 21 who are married. That, again, would involve very large expenditure, and I am not as convinced as the hon. Member for Hitchin that it is a wise policy to encourage men at the beginning of their careers in the Army, or of any other careers, to undertake the obligations and responsibilities of marriage. The age of 26 does not seem to me to be too old to enter upon all those responsibilities. When I reflect on the large sum of money involved and the doubts that must exist as to the wisdom of such a policy, especially for men who have to travel abroad and find themselves for five or six years in a different climate, I think that there are good grounds for hesitating before making that one of the chief items on which we could incur vast Government expenditure.

Earl WINTERTON: In the course of the investigations, has any questionnaire been put to commanding officers to ascertain whether it is a fact that this is a deterrent to recruiting, because the information which reaches me is rather

the opposite to what my right hon. Friend has stated?

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us whether the large expenditure which he says would be involved is based on the actual number of men below 25 who are married? If not, on what is it based, because how can he say how many would marry if there were an allowance?

Mr. COOPER: It is based on the number of men under 25 who are married, and we have to make allowance for a much larger expenditure which might possibly occur if those who are not married were encouraged to do so by an allowance. In reply to the Noble Lord, I believe that it is a deterrent to recruiting, but among many deterrents I do not think that it is one of the principal. The hon. Member for West Toxteth and the hon. Member for Hitchin spoke of cases within their knowledge where men had suffered while in the Service and had not received any compensation for their injuries. One of those hon. Members spoke of the disability which those men had incurred, being regarded as not attributable to Service conditions, and it was implied that in civil life those men would have been compensated. But, of course, it is no more the case in civil life than in the Army that a man is compensated for injuries received when he is on his holidays or when he is amusing himself in his own way, and there, again, it would be a very great obligation to undertake to say that while a soldier was serving abroad we should be entirely responsible for anything that happened to him. However, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hitchin that some insurance system should be worked out under which a man would be insured against all eventualities while in the Service is a suggestion which well deserves consideration.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) can hardly expect me to reply at any length to his speech, as it was concerned practically with foreign affairs. I would only say that I doubt very much whether a young man standing outside a recruiting office and hesitating whether or not to join the Army, does take gravely into consideration how far he can give his full approval to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. I would also say that, so far as the hon. Member can define that policy, or so far as he has


chosen to define the foreign policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I should have thought that our foreign policy was based entirely, as it is, on the support of the League of Nations. [HON. MEMBERS "Question"] If he says that he has not full confidence in the Government carrying out that policy in the way it should, I reply "Of course he has not. I hope he would not be sitting there if he had." I do not suppose there has ever been a period in English history when the Opposition had complete confidence in the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. That situation is as old as Parliamentary Government. What is new is the theory "So long as we have not complete confidence in your foreign policy you can hardly expect us to do anything to encourage the defence of the country." Surely that is a, very extraordinary view. Could one go so far as to say, "We have not confidence in your home policy, no confidence in the Home Secretary, and, therefore, do you expect us to do anything to maintain the rule of law and order at home, or to assist the police in carrying out their duties"? I am sure hon. Members opposite would say, "When we are in office we shall certainly expect you to do all you can to assist in keeping up those Services which maintain law and order in the country and undertake the defence of the country from attack. They should have the support of all sections of the community whether they believe in the Government or not."
The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) put forward one or two suggestions. He referred to the importance of privacy in barracks and of the necessity for giving soldiers cubicles. As he will probably have found out from his experience of administration, it is very difficult, in matters of taste, to arrive always at the right solution. Not very long ago one of my colleagues, speaking from his own experience as a soldier, said the lack of privacy was the thing he had minded most. I happened to mention it to a distinguished officer with whom I was lunching the following day. He said, "It is funny that you should mention that subject. The day before yesterday I was at a certain barracks, where I found that cubicles, which had previously been installed, had been

taken away. I asked why they had been removed and the reply was, ' We prefer all muddling in together.' "That really was the opinion of the men in that particular unit; and a noble Friend behind me remarks," That is true." It shows how difficult it is to find out what it is that men really prefer.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked, and many other Members referred to the matter, that the men in the Army should receive as many meals a day as in the Navy. I can assure him that that is also the view of the Army Council, and is a reform which I hope we may be able to introduce in the near future. There are some units in which arrangements are made whereby the men do obtain their suppers, out of regimental funds or in some other way; and I gather from the letter which was read by the hon. Member for Hitchin that that is the case in the unit to which the writer was referring—that suppers were issued to those who wished for them. He seemed to suggest that in this respect the officers were better treated than the men, but that, of course, is not the case. Their rations are exactly the same as the men's, but a little more of them is devoted to the later evening mealdinner—instead of to the earlier evening meal—tea—of the private soldier. No difference is made in the Government expenditure on the rations given to the private soldier and to the officer.

Mr. BELLENGER: What about the field Allowances?

Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member also spoke of the medical tests. There has recently been an inquiry into them by the War Office, and we have rearranged the men into four categories, with a lower medical test for those who are not required to carry out the harder tasks. I hope that will prove to be a step in the right direction and will enable us to obtain many recruits who might otherwise be rejected. I can assure the hon. Member also that in the barracks we are now building we are doing everything we can to improve the lighting and the general comfort conditions. One thing I am most anxious to see is that the men should have, outside the barrack room, a sitting room where they will be able—20 or 30 of them—to go without dressing up, as they have to do if they go out to the canteen or the


institute, and where they can sit in a comfortable chair and read the paper, probably listen to the wireless and have ordinary amenities such as officers enjoy.
The right hon. Member for Keighley said he had noticed an improvement in the tone of my speeches at recent meetings. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) reproached me during the Debate on the Address with the tone of my speeches, of which he did not entirely approve, and I hope he feels that I have taken his advice and profited by his counsel. But I would say that of recent weeks there has also been a change, both in this House and outside, in the tone of the speeches of hon. Members opposite and of their supporters. It is significant that in this Debate to-day and in the Debate on Defence which we had recently not one Member suggested that we are spending too much upon defence, that we are wasting money and ought to be reducing that expenditure. My right hon. Friend will know as well as I that that would not have been the case two or three years ago, and I am not sure whether it would have been the case last year.
I rejoice at the change of tone, and hope that I can rely upon hon. Members opposite not to restrict that tone to the Floor of the House. Last year I appealed to them to assist me in the task of recruiting for the Army. I am unable to keep in touch with all their activities, or to read all their speeches, and I do not now to what extent they have responded to that appeal. I cannot say that I have had many good recruiting speeches made in the country by hon. Members opposite brought to my notice, but I do hope that they, realising as they must what is in danger at the present time, and feeling as anxious, as I am sure they do, that things worth defending must be defended, will give me more assistance in the months and years which lie ahead, on my assurance that everything will be done in the very near future that possibly can be done to improve the conditions of the men serving in the Army and their prospects on leaving the Army. On that assurance I hope that they will share their part of the burden of helping us to obtain the recruits we need.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about promotion from the ranks and the possibility of increasing the facilities for it?

Mr. COOPER: I am sorry that I omitted to do so. The hon. Member for Hitchin asked me how many men from the ranks had received commissions. The figure is 132.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Last year?

Mr. COOPER: No, in the last five years. I am not myself convinced that there is any great feeling in the Army that promotion from the ranks is insufficient. A steady flow goes on; the figure is about the same every year. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, there are a great many men who could obtain commissions, who, it is suggested, should apply for them, and they prefer not to do so. One quite understands the reasons that make them hesitate. I fully agree with him that the Army, and, indeed, all the Services, should live up to the idea that they offer a career open to talent. An inquiry was held into whether a new system of promotion from the ranks should be introduced, and the decision of the tribunal which went into the matter was that the present system was satisfactory. That committee was set up in 1931, when Mr. Shaw was Secretary of State for War.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Was the tribunal wholly Service in character?

Mr. COOPER: I do not know who served on the tribunal, but it took place under the aegis of Mr. Tom Shaw.

6.29 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
is of opinion that the Government's failure to take these steps hitherto render their complaints regarding the lack of recruits unjustifiable.
I feel that I am showing a certain temerity in venturing into the subject of Army recruiting, especially as in doing so I shall become involved in criticism of a Minister who has shown himself rather intolerant of criticism, especially on the part of bishops. The right hon. Gentleman's reply just now was, however, so fair and so courteous in reference to the points raised that I feel that, perhaps, I may be allowed to embark for a short cruise in rather unfamiliar waters. I should like to refer to the speech of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on 10th November, when he admitted that


the position of the Army as regards recruiting was not as good as that of the Navy and the Air Force. He said:
There has been no clear call to youth since the War,
but the Minister said he was proposing to sound the call, when all, apparently, would be well. I do not know when that call is going to be sounded by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, nor am I sure that his personal charms and persuasiveness are such as will necessarily appeal to the youth of this nation. In the same speech, the Minister admitted, in regard to recruiting, that an "adjustment of conditions" was required, and that those conditions were receiving thorough investigation. Is there any progress to report as regards that examination of the conditions? Is the inquiry being expedited, and is it possible yet to give any indication of the lines on which it is proceeding?
It seems to be evident, although those responsible for recruiting have done everything possible by normal methods of appeal and publicity, that those methods are failing, because the shortage is increasing. If that be so, it is surely evident that completely new methods will have to be tried. What can the Secretary of State say to show that new methods are being tried, of a character which will attract men of the higher type, whom it is absolutely necessary to attract, in order to meet the requirements of a mechanised Army? It is no use blaming the pacifists or peace propaganda, for the shortage of recruits. It would be far more profitable to look at the differences between Army conditions and those in civilian employment. Those differences are so marked already, that, if employment improves, recruiting will correspondingly deteriorate. To stimulate recruiting, the conditions of Army life must be improved. In that connection, I should like to consider for a moment the recruiting posters and recruiting literature which are issued by the War Office, and to ask whether they contain a perfectly straightforward account of conditions prevailing in the Army.
I notice, incidentally, that these posters appear to borrow very largely indeed from Labour party policy. The very things which Conservatives tell us can never be done because of

economic laws which Mr. Montagu Norman alone understands, are promised to the would-be recruit, if he will undertake to lay down his life in the defence of Capitalism. Let me call attention to the leaflets. First of all, I have here an extremely attractive leaflet, from which it appears that life in the Army is one long, sweet song and nothing but games, and there is no mention of anything so low or vulgar as soldiering. It has a page devoted entirely to games and to eating. In the centre, is an extremely jolly-looking soldier, holding in his arms a pig, and the pig is wearing a military cap. I do not know on what grounds that is put forward to stimulate recruiting. Then there is another pamphlet, entitled, "The Army; the finest job in the world." It begins very happily indeed with a photograph of several soldiers shaking hands with the King—I suppose as an indication of what daily life in the Army is like. Then it goes on to say—once again, there is no mention, at first, of anything so low or vulgar as soldiering:
Soldiering in the Army offers exceptional advantages in the way of physical training, education, foreign travel, sport and many other facilities, so that there is little or no prospect of a monotonous or irksome time.
It says:
 The Army offers a unique opportunity of seeing something of the world.
I think it falls a little bit flat, in the way of offering a career because it says:
It is no uncommon occurrence for a really first-rate man to reach the rank of sergeant in five years.
It features a very important point of Labour party policy, namely, holidays on full pay, but whereas we are putting forward only a very modest suggestion of eight days a year on full pay, the Army overbids us by offering a month a year on full pay. Then comes a passage which really might be extracted from the prospectus of some boarding house at the seaside:
Special dining halls, where meals, cooked on latest principles, are well served. Billiards and bagatelle tables; baths with hot and cold water always available.
If, I suppose, the recruit has any time for it. Then it says:
Theatres, concerts, entertainments; nowhere in civil life does sport play such an important part as in the Army.
That is the final recommendation.
How are those promises kept This pamphlet reminds me of the story of a sailor who was telling another sailor what had led him to join the Navy. He said that the recruiting chief petty officer had shown him a coloured picture of an admiral in full dress uniform, and that underneath was written: "This is what you are going to be." The sailor added: "But he was keeping his thumb on the ' not '." There is a good deal of the "not" about the promises held out in this pamphlet. The recruit is promised 14s. per week, food and clothes. In fact he finds he has to pay for all manner of things himself, such as the buttons on his overcoat. I think it is the height of meanness that he has to pay for his uniform to be pressed when it is issued to him. There are stoppages for things like library and rifle clubs, and his 14s, becomes whittled down to 10s. or 11s. a week. Why not tell the would-be recruit the exact facts of the conditions of service which await him? I can remember perfectly well, from my experience in the Navy, that nothing rankles more with a sailor than coming up against some condition of service which has not been properly explained to him. I am sure that the same thing applies to a soldier.
The broad rule surely should be that whatever a soldier needs in order to be a soldier should be provided free. If die scheme of training laid down by the War Office necessitates certain equipment and expenses, why should the soldier defray those expenses? In any case, I am sure that the pay offered is not enough to attract skilled men, and that inducements in the way of extra pay as a reward for exceptional skill and efficiency are required. The inducements at the present moment are very small. A fully-trained man, after four years' service, is drawing one shilling a day more than the recruit. On the question of food I will not say much, because we all grumble about food. Whether in this House, at home or at the club, we always grumble about the food, but why is it that some regiments can and do give the soldier his supper free, while in other regiments he has to pay for it? Why not decide once and for all to give the soldier his supper?
In the Debate on 12th March the Secretary of State urged, in effect, that unemployment should be used as a recruit-

ing sergeant and that the unemployed ma-n should join the Army, where
they would be well cared for and well nourished.
Earlier in the same speech, however, the Secretary of State said:
The housing of the troops…is still terribly behind what it ought to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1936; cols. 2356 and 2354, Vol. 309.]
After that, and what I have mentioned about the soldier having to pay for his supper, this claim that the unemployed man will be well cared for and well nourished, does not appear to be completely substantiated.
The Secretary of State has admitted that the general standard of living has advanced far beyond that prevailing in the Army. What is he going to do to bring it up to that standard? I have visited barracks which are inconceivably depressing, with cold rooms badly lit, iron cots with bolsters filled with wood shavings on which the soldier sleeps in his shirt, and a complete lack of privacy. What kind of conditions are those for the higher type of skilled man whom the Army needs so much? Barrack life still involves many vexatious and unnecessary regulations. Conditions seem to depend very much upon the commanding officer. When there is a good commanding officer, things may not be so bad, but why should the views of a reactionary commanding officer who has not kept himself abreast of new ideas as to freedom still be allowed to prevail? Why not lay down a general standard, and have it adhered to in all regiments?
I hope it will not be thought that I am levelling any general charge of harshness or bullying, but I venture to stress the importance of officers getting down to the lives of their men and checking anything in the nature of personal abuse, bad language, or bullying on the part of non-commissioned officers. In the Navy officers have to live in close contact with their men, and one of the first things impressed upon me was that it was, to say the least, improper to abuse or to swear at a man who would be severely punished for insubordination if he replied in kind. Remembering the type of man who is now wanted in the Army, I suggest that anything in the nature of personal abuse, bad language or bullying should be most severely suppressed.
There seems to be a rather gloomy atmosphere in the Army of rigid class distinction which has, to a great extent, been modified in the Navy. The recruit is also impressed with the overwhelming necessity for blind obedience and action without thought. Every glimmer of individualism or initiative is stamped out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) touched upon the question of class distinction. I would remind hon. Members that in a letter which he wrote to Lord Haldane, Lord Esher said:
The Army is officered by a caste with caste prejudices.
Let the Secretary of State try to lift us out of that caste system, and give us an Army more in tune with modern Democracy. If he does so, I venture to phophesy that he will not be in such trouble about recruiting. The Home Secretary went to Perth not so long ago in order to deliver a speech about the blessings of Democracy and the defence of Democracy, but the Secretary of State tells us, in answer to a question, that, during the past three years, only 15 per cent. of new officers have come from the ranks. Let us have a real, and not a sham, system of promotion from the ranks; then a good type of man will be attracted, because the Army will offer such men a career.
One other point is in regard to foreign service. This practically cast-iron service of holding a man for an extra year seems undesirable. It is also undesirable that men should be brought home from foreign service and discharged almost at once, so that they are stranded and in some cases penniless. Also, is it really impossible to break foreign service with spells of home leave with assisted passages? Many soldiers spend nearly the whole of their Army service in India without a break. The monotony must be very great. The officer in India has many distractions in the shape of games and sport and gets from two to three months' leave a year, on full pay. He can go home on leave. The soldier in India has ten days' leave per annum, if he can be spared, and he can go home on leave only after six years' service. His pay is not sufficient to allow him to enjoy any very great distractions, and he cannot meet any women from his

own class. The discrepancy between the officer's life and the soldier's life in India is far too great. The leave arrangements were made when transport home was slow and difficult. Modern transport facilities should make it possible to give home leave to the troops in India.
I think that the means of attracting recruits is a perfectly straightforward statement of the conditions of service, and not the sort of "bunk"—I can call it nothing else—that appears in the pamphlet from which I have read extracts this afternoon. There should be a n improvement in pay, an absence of vexatious stoppages, a far higher standard of living in barracks, discipline which combines firmness with a complete absence of bullying, home leave during foreign service, training for a job on return to civil life, and the practical certainty of getting one. If you are to attract the better type of man that the mechanised Army now requires, these improvements in conditions seem to me to be absolutely essential. The Government do not appear to have realised this, and have failed in their duty accordingly.
Over and above all these considerations as to conditions of service lies the deterrent that men are reluctant to enlist so long as they think the Army will be used as it was between 1914 and 1918—that they will be sent abroad to take part in a war of masses, with the masses rotting in the trenches or engulfed in the mud. If the War Office is not thinking in terms of the last War and of vast masses of men, why is there any talk of conscription in the air? So long as this conception of war with masses of men dominates the War Office, so long will recruits be reluctant to come forward. Young men have no intention of being used up in a war of that description. What the Secretary of State has to tell us is what he proposes to do to meet this and other criticisms. Existing methods are failing to produce recruits; is he going to try new methods, and try them quickly, or is he playing with the idea of conscription? If he is playing with the idea of conscription, then he is going to file a petition of bankruptcy of ideas. The speeches from all quarters of the House to-day show that the terms of the Amendment are fully justified; indeed, the speech of


the Secretary of State himself is an admission that the terms of the Amendment are justified, and I therefore beg to move it.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not going to attempt to continue the process of "de-bunking"—I apologise for using the word—the pamphlet from which my hon. and gallant Friend has read, but 1 would just like to add something that he omitted from his speech, and that is that, in referring to the holiday of one month which the Army promises in this pamphlet, the word "month" is put in inverted commas. What that really means I do not know; it may suggest that the month cannot be guaranteed; but, in case the right hon. Gentleman would like to look into this pamphlet, and perhaps revise it, I would tell him that it is Army Form B. 2557.
We on this side of the House are grateful in one way to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer), who has put this Motion on the Paper. In itself the Motion is somewhat of a criticism of the Government for their failure to obtain the number of recruits which they desire and which they say is necessary. I wish to substantiate that statement by referring to the right hon. Gentleman's speech itself. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his reply that the neglect to improve the conditions of the Forces was due to the fact that in the last 10 or 15 years this nation has been disarming. I think that that rather endorses what Rudyard Kipling said in immortal words, and what has been said by the soldier himself in his inevitable "grouse"—that the soldier is forgotten in peace-time, and is only remembered in war-time.
The right hon. Gentleman has admitted to-day that many of the suggestions which have been made to him from these benches, and from his own supporters, are urgently necessary. He tells us that in the past he has been unable to accomplish them because either he has not had the money or he has not had the courage to tell the House of Commons that these things were necessary. He has also remarked that the Cardwell system, which I believe is an integral part of our Army training, should be revised. But he has told us that it would cost money to do so. Of

course it would; we are not denying that; but is not rearmament costing us a lot of money? Surely the test should be whether the Cardwell system is out of date and whether it should be brought up to date. And if it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it would not take weeks or months to accomplish this reform, surely the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) should be started on straight away, so that in time we can get the most desirable system for training the Army.
The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he does not think it is the appropriate time to have better recruiting offices or better recruiting systems, because, as he says, it is not a good plan to advertise an inferior article. Surely that is an admission. If Army occupation is an inferior article, should not the right hon. Gentleman produce some better article? I am glad to know that many of the suggestions which have been made to-day will receive his attention. I can assure him—and I made this statement in a previous speech to which he has referred this afternoon—I can assure him that I personally have never been in the slightest doubt as to the desirability of recruiting and of bringing the Army establishment up to its proper requirements. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has noticed the change in the tone of speeches from hon. Members on this side of the House in the last two or three months, might he not reflect that, if his colleague the Prime Minister had taken the opportunity to inform the nation two or three years ago of the necessity for recruiting and for expansion of the defence forces, it might have been possible for hon. Members on these benches to go to their constituencies and say that the danger was so urgent that it was necessary that men and women in this country should play their part in defending their country, if need be, against aggression? The right hon. Gentleman has remarked that he has not noticed many speeches of this nature in the Press. Perhaps it may interest him to know that, as a result of the speech which I made in this House, and which was published in the local newspaper in my own constituency, I have already received some criticism—criticism which came from a friend of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. GALLACHER: I had nothing to do with that.

Mr. BELLENGER: It leaves me absolutely cold when members of the Communist party take me to task for doing what I consider to be my duty. It is interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman now that soldiers can obtain leave until one o'clock in the morning without the necessity of a pass. I only wish that that had been the case in the days when I was in the Army, but I rather think that then the time by which we had to be back in barracks was 11 o'clock. I am very glad to know that the 11 o'clock rule, if I may so call it, has been suspended permanently.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: We do not want it suspended here.

Mr. BELLENGER: One final word on the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He remarked that he thought that 26 should be the earliest age at which a soldier should marry. I do not think he limited it even to a soldier. But I am not so sure of that myself. Although I personally married one year later than that, nevertheless I realise that there are many young men who find it desirable for various reasons to marry at an earlier age than 26, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not lay down a new "age of consent."
Does not this whole question of recruiting divide itself into two parts? There is the question of providing adequate defence forces in human material against what may be a great danger which will necessitate a big expansion of the defence forces of this country; and in that category I place the Territorial Force. I am certain that, if only the country were told the truth—which it has not been told, except in asides from the Prime Minister when he speaks with "appalling frankness"—if the country were told the truth, I am certain that young men would realise where their duty lies. As regards what I may call the police military forces, their numbers are limited, and I cannot see that they will be expanded for the duties they have to perform, which consist merely in policing the Empire. The largest portion of those forces, I believe, is kept in India. If a man knows that in joining the Army he has got to be sent out to India for six or seven years, he hesitates before he

enlists. If he is told, and if he believes, that in joining the Army he is preparing himself for a profession or a trade later on when he leaves the Army, and if he is given suitable conditions as to pay, hours and so on while he is in the Army, and is enabled to learn a trade during those early years—the best years, I may say—of his life, then I am certain that you will get as many recruits as you desire. I do not ask for molly-coddling of recruits or soldiers. I have served during a time of danger—and I am speaking seriously here—in the last War. Life then was not easy; there are many improvements that can be made; but nevertheless we do not ask for molly-coddling. A certain amount of discipline is necessary in every walk of life. But the right hon. Gentleman has been informed to-day from all parts of the House how necessary it is that the soldier should have some of the amenities of civilisation, just as the civilian himself has.
My concluding word is this: I speak as one who rose from the ranks during the last War. I rose to commissioned rank by active service in the field. On the first occasion in this country when I presented myself for a commission, I was refused. I was refused because I had not those educational qualifications which the Army thought in those days, in 1915, were desirable for an officer. Later on I went to the Western Front, and I was then accepted as an officer, when the Army was needing more officers than it required in 1915. I have nothing to say against that period during which I was an officer; you will require officers under whatever system you have; but I know as a fact that in those days—democratic days, I may call them—there was a distinction made between the officer who had had a public school education and the officer who had not had that education. The only opportunity for a private rising to commissioned rank was to be made a lieutenant-quartermaster, and always that position was looked upon in the officers' mess with a certain sense of superiority towards the person who was the quartermaster. It was considered the lowest domestic job in the commissioned ranks.
I cannot urge too strongly or too seriously on the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to make the Army something desirable from the point of view of


the rank and file, if he wants to obtain recruits in the numbers which he says are necessary, he cannot do better than discard the leaflets we have heard about and say to the recruits that there is opportunity for promotion in the Army to the highest possible rank. The dictum of Napoleon that every private soldier carries a field marshal's baton in his haversack is not true, but surely those of us who start in a humble position in life and look forward to the days when we can marry and make our own homes, and when our salaries or wages will be better than when we started, have a desirable ambition. You cannot deny to the soldier what you do not deny to the private civilian. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay more attention to the appeal for better opportunities for promotion that has been made from these benches.

7.3 p.m.

Miss WARD: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend to examine the machinery at present in operation at the War Office for the granting of pensions to men serving with the Forces who suffer an injury. I must apologise for using one personal example, but I feel this so strongly that I consider it my duty to do so. A private playing in a battalion football match received a kick, and subsequently was discharged from the Army. For more than a year he has been going about on crutches. He attempted to get a pension from the War Office, but it was not granted. He then applied to me, and I wrote to the War Office about his case. The pension was again turned down, as I understand it, without examination. I thought for some time of the position of this boy, who apparently for the rest of his life was going to be incapacitated, and I decided that the only chance I had of fighting his case with the War Office was to have him examined by a first-class specialist whose name would receive consideration at the War Office. This I did. The specialist gave a report favourable to the pressing of the claim. I forwarded this to the War Office, and a short time afterwards they granted him a reasonable pension for a period, and subject to examination from time to time, which is as it should be I then asked whether the War Office would consider granting him a pension from

the time of the accident. This they refused to do.
It is difficult for a civilian to fight a case with the War Office, but I am always rather persistent, and I thought the War Office might at least consider granting the pension from the time that I raised the case. Not being experienced in these matters it had taken me some months to think of an adequate way of presenting this man's case to the War Office. The letters I have received point out that it is the duty of an ex-private to keep the War Office informed of his condition of health. If that be so, what chance does my right hon. Friend think that an ex-private has of fighting his case, when the War Office did not even trouble to have this boy examined when I, as his Parliamentary representative, brought the case to their notice? I am sorry to speak so strongly, but I feel this matter very deeply. I have fought the case many times, and I cannot get any further than the grant of a pension from the date of the specialist's certificate. I wrote to the specialist, telling him what was the position, and asked him if he could give me a further certificate saying that if the case had been brought to his notice earlier he would have given me the same type of certificate as I had submitted. His reply was that if the pension was granted at the date of the original certificate, it was obvious that the pension should have been granted from the date when the man received the injury.
I put forward a claim for consideration from that date. I think it was most inconsiderate that the War Office did not even grant the pension from the date of the specialist's certificate, but from the date of my letter enclosing the certificate. If they take that date the least they can do is to grant the pension from the date when I raised the matter. I suggest that when you have in ley part of the world—where you are anxious to attract young men to the Forces—the spectacle of a young man going about on crutches and suffering from an injury which a specialist said should be considered for a pension, yet whose claim has been rejected with scant consideration, it is not a good recruiting advertisement. I have rarely been so annoyed at an injustice in my life. There is room for serious examina-


tion of the whole problem. It is not always that one suddenly thinks of a way of getting justice for an individual, and I know from conversations with people who have knowledge of Army matters that there are a large number of people who have been refused pensions and who might reasonably have had consideration from the War Office. I should like my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that this kind of thing will not happen in the future, and that he will ask his officials to consider the whole matter carefully and see whether the War Office is acting fairly and in the best interests of those who join the Service.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I have two complaints to make. They have not gained the success which that of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) seems to have had. Since I have been in the House I have put two cases to the War Office, and I find the Department very hard-hearted. One case was that of a widow in my division. Her son, only 17, enlisted without his mother knowing. The boy had moved to the south, and she did not know he was in the Army for a time. When he got tired of the Service, before he was 18, he wrote and told her everything. The mother asked for the boy to be released. It then transpired that if the boy was to come out of the Army the mother would have to find £35. She borrowed the money and paid for the lad to come out. I saw the Under-Secretary for War and asked whether the Department could not consider giving her at least some of this money back, even if they could not give her all of it. The War Office said "No. We can give you nothing at all." When cases like that occur in a colliery village everybody in the village knows about it, and the effect is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman getting the recruits he wants.
The other case is that of a lad who died at Aldershot. His parents desired that he should be buried in Yorkshire. The lad had £10 to his credit, but after he had been buried in Yorkshire, and when his father came to square up accounts, the £10 was taken from his credit and the father had to find £3 or £4 towards the burial. There have been no recruits from that village since. The father was a prominent trade union

official. Everbody in the village got to know that in burying his lad at home the father, who was only working two or three days a week, had to help to meet the cost. Cases like that do not help recruiting in the mining villages. There is poison in the soul of the Reservist when he is paid his £3 6s. pension and half of it is taken into account when he draws unemployment assistance. If he is a single man, he draws 10s. a week. He has to go without for three weeks altogether, and in the fourth week he gets only 7s. Do you think a thing like that will help you with recruiting in industrial areas? I ask you to talk to the Minister of Labour and get that out of the road, because you will not get soldiers that way.
There is another point that I should like to raise. For some considerable time I have been asking that the rank and file should have butter instead of margarine. I know hon. Members smile about it, but the lads who are eating it do not smile. The boys that the Under-Secretary for Air is getting between 16 and 18 are generally secondary school boys. A considerable percentage of them come from the upper working or middle class, and they have not been used to margarine at breakfast, tea, dinner and supper. Is it good for lads of that age to be stuffed with margarine instead of having butter? You want to build up their physique. The War Secretary stated in answer to a question that it would cost £195,000 to change from margarine to butter for the Army, Navy and Air Force, but, if you make the change, would you not be helping the farmers who are squealing that they are in bad circumstances? I make the plea especially on account of the type of recruit that the Secretary of State for Air is getting. The Secretary of State for War thinks that butter will help to build up people who are deficient when they come to the recruiting office, because on 13th October last he went to Aldershot to examine 33 weedy looking, pallid-faced, flat-chested youths who are being carefully nursed by the Army authorities up to the regulation physical standard.
He said, "These lads must have a different diet from those who are already in the Army," and this is the diet that he gave them: Breakfast: tea, bread and butter, porridge, sausage and mash,


marmalade; dinner: sea pie (Irish stew with a crust), potatoes, butter, beans, rice pudding and stewed prunes; tea: tea, bread and butter, and salmon paste; supper: cocoa, liver and bacon. That is a very good diet, a better diet than I would trust myself to have. You know the reason for that. If the War Secretary felt that a diet of this kind was necessary to make under-nourished recruits fit, I want to ask that those who are over the line should be treated in the same way. What is £195,000 if you are going to make the lads contented? I went home on Friday with a lad who was going back to my town for a holiday. I said, "How is your diet?" He said, "It is not amiss now, but when we first went it was rough stuff." I said, "How do you like margarine?" He said, "I turn my nose up at it, but when we get so long in, the diet is lifted a bit." If you give them a good diet before they get in to make them fit, I Am asking you to give them a good diet when they are in to keep them fit.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I have heard some extraordinary things said in this Debate. The speech of the hon. Member on my right flank was of a most peculiar character. He said, if the Prime Minister would only tell the truth, he would go with him All the way. Not all the efforts that I and my hon. Friends make will keep him from doing his duty. Let him do his duty. Get the Prime Minister to tell the truth and let him go with the Prime Minister. I will not try to stop him. In view of the sensational pronouncements that have been made about the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps), I wonder what is going to be said about such a pronouncement as has been made on this occasion by a gentleman who desires just that the Prime Minister should tell the truth so that he can follow him heart and soul.
I should like to draw attention to the retort of the War Minister to the hon. Member who spoke from my left flank about foreign policy. How do you expect to understand or deal with the problem if that is how you face up to it? The young people in the youths' organizations—the Christian Youth Organisation or the Young Men's Christian Association—are all engaged in discussing the ques-

tion of the League of Nations and collective security, and you will find, if you look at the reports of the discussions that take place, that they all, with scarcely an exception, condemn the Imperialist policy of the Nationalist Government. As a consequence of that, you get an atmosphere which is against the foreign policy of the Government. If hon. Members opposite will go among them and talk to them they will get discussions of foreign policy which will probably be a revelation to them.
Another question to which I want to draw attention is that of caste in the Army. It is not going to be solved by admitting a greater number from the ranks into the officer class. An hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that, when they come in from the ranks, the officers' mess welcomes them. The officers' mess welcomes them provided they are prepared to act as gentlemen would act, provided, not that they are capable military officers but that they cut off all associations with their former associates and become gentlemen. I have always wondered what was the matter with my hon. Friend on my right flank. I do not know how many military men are present, and I do not know of any particular representative of the Forces, but can you imagine a private coming along the Strand, meeting his colonel, and saying, "Hallo, Johnny. Come and have a drink "? Where would discipline be? We could never stand for that. Caste is there and a private coming along the street must understand that, if he meets an officer and a gentleman, he meets a superior being. As soon as a man comes from the ranks into the officers' mess, they start the process of corrupting him from being a real man to being a gentleman. That is one thing that has got to be finished if you want an Army that is concerned with the defence of the people of any country. You can never get an army while you have the caste system that exists to-day.
There is a question that I want to ask. Is it not the case that, if there is a young man in the Army—I will give the Minister proof if he wants it—who is physically fit and interested in his work, but the authorities find out that he is associated with the Communist movement, out he goes? There are politics in the Army, and the Army is for a particular political policy. Is it


the case that, if a young man writes home for Communist literature, he gets gently and quietly slipped out of the Army? If it is true there are lots of young fellows in the Army who want to come out and they will know what to do—write home and ask for Communist

literature. The young man who joins the Army will thus be able to resign just as readily as officers do.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 112.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Orr-EwIng, I. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Penny, Sir G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Pilkington, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Harbord, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
 Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
 Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bossom, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
 Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Hepworth, J.
 Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
 Ropner, Colonel L. 


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
 Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) 


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holdsworth, H.
 Rowlands, G. 


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Holmes, J. S.
 Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.
 Salmon, Sir I.


Bull, B. B.
Hopkinson, A.
 Salt. E. W. 


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
 Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cary, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
 Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) 


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
 Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. 


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
 Somerset, T.


Channon, H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
 Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
 Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. 


Colville, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
 Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. 


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
 Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H. 


Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Leckle, J. A.
 Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Cot. Sir G. L.
Levy, T.
 Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) 


Crooke, J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
 Storey, S. 


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Loftus, P. C.
 Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) 


Cross, R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
 Srauss, H. G. (Norwich) 


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
 Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) 


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
 Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. 


De Chair, S. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
 Sutcliffe, H. 


Denman. Hon. R. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
 Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) 


Denville. Alfred
Magnay, T.
 Titchfield, Marquess of 


Doland, G. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
 Train, Sir J. 


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
 Tree, A. R. L. F. 


Eastwood, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
 Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. 


Eckersley, P. T.
Maxwell, S. A.
 Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. 


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
 Wakefield, W. W. 


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
 Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) 


Emery, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
 Ward, Irene (Wallsend) 


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morgan, R. H.
 Warrender, Sir V. 


Everard, W. L.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
 Waterhouse, Captain C. 


Fildes, Sir H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)
 Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. 


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Muirhead, Lt-Cal. A. J.
 Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G. 


Furness, S. N.
Munro, P.
 Withers, Sir J. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nall, Sir J.



Granville, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
 TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— 


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
 Mr. Palmer and Mr. AnstrutherGray.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Cocks, F. S.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cove, W. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Adamson, W. M.
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Anderson. F. (Whitehaven)
Dalton, H.
Grenfell. D. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Barr, J.
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Groves, T. E.


Benson, G.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Bromfield, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Ede, J. C.
Hardie, G. D.


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Burke. W. A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hayday, A.


Cassells, T.
Gallacher, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Charleton, H. C.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Chater, D.
Gibbins, J.
Hollins, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Jagger, J.




Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Jenkins, Sir W. (heath)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stephen, C.


John, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-sp'ng)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Owen, Major G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Parker, J.
Thorne, W.


Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, J. A.
Thurtle. E.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, J, J.


Kirkwood, D.
Potts, J.
Vlant, S. P.


Lathan, G.
Price, M P.
Walker, J.


Lawson, J. J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watkins. F. C.


Leonard, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Watson, W. McL.


Logan, D. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Welsh, J. C.


Lunn, W.
Rlley, B.
Westwood, J.


McGhee, H. G.
Ridley, G.
White, H. Graham


MacLaren, A.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


Maclean, N.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mander, G. le M.
Rowson, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Marshall, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Mathers, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.



Maxton, J.
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Montague, F.
Short, A.
Commander Fletcher and Mr. Bellenger.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)



Muff, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. LOGAN: Mr. LOGAN rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

NATIONAL PARKS.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move,
That this House urges the Government, especially in view of the new national health crusade, to take whatever steps may seem most appropriate in the light of the recommendations of the National Parks Committee, 1931, to stimulate and develop action for the preservation of the countryside and its amenities, including the reservation of areas of natural interest against disorderly development and spoliation and the improvement of their accessibility to the public.
The subject of this Debate is one that interests millions of people in this country both organised and unorganised. All those people who like to take their holidays in the fresh air in the form of exercise in surroundings that have been fashioned by nature's magic hand and have not been spoiled by the vagaries of man, are interested. There has been a very remarkable increase in recent years in the number of ramblers and hikers. I have some information which shows the large numbers in different organisations interested in this subject. For example, the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland with 8,000 members, the Cyclists Touring Association with 39,000, the Ramblers Association with 40,000, and the Youth Hostel Association with 60,000, a total in these four organisations alone—and there are many other organisations —of 147,000. Apart from this, there are

very large numbers who are entirely unorganised. This feeling for greater facilities in the form of national parks found its first definite expression from the point of view of the Government, I think, in the appointment of the National Parks Committee, which reported in 1031. I will quote the terms of reference which they had. They say:
Our terms of reference specify four objects with which we deal in later chapters:

(1) Measures for the preservation of the natural characteristics of the country.
(2) Measures for the preservation of flora and fauna.
(3) Measures for improving the recreational facilities of the people.
(4) The selection of areas best fitted to further these purposes."
I am not going to refer to the question of the preservation of flora and fauna more than to make this passing reference. It is the fact, I believe, that of the 1,800 flowering plants and ferns which are natural to these islands, no fewer than 294, or one-sixth of the whole, have become extinct in one or more counties, and this shows the importance of dealing with it from that point of view. Some progress, it is true, has been made since the report of that committee, but very few of the recommendations have actually been carried out. Perhaps I ought to define a national park, and I cannot do this better than by using the words of the committee. They say, in paragraph 15:
We exclude, as outside our terms of reference, any question of playing fields, organised amusements or motoring facilities: our concern is with the opportunities open to nature lovers, walkers, climbers and camping parties to enjoy natural scenery and to spend their leisure in the open air.


In paragraph 18 they refer to the subject again when they say:
We think that assistance should be provided by improving the opportunities of access for pedestrians to areas of exceptional natural beauty. In many cases it would be found that the need would be sufficiently met by the provision of well-defined tracks: by the provision of huts in mountainous regions where the climber could spend a night without coming down from the hills: by the provision of hostels, suitably placed, where the pedestrian could find food and a night's lodging at reasonable cost: and by the provision of additional camp sites.
Those two extracts describe very well what we mean by the question of national parks. It may be said that some illustration should be given of the type of area which one has in mind in discussing this subject. I would quote such well-known examples as the Lake District, Snowdonia, Dartmoor, the New Forest, Exmoor, Dovedale. In the case of Dovedale I would remind the House of the rapid developments that are taking place there through the generosity of Mr. McDougall, which are in a fair way to make this very beautiful area national property. There is more important work still to be done there, but very satisfactory progress has been made. There is the Peak District, South Downs, Bowland Forest, Forest of Dean, the Roman Wall between Gilsland and Chesters, Cannock Chase, West Riding, the Cairngorms area, the Trossacks, Black Mountains and Brecon Mountains. There are others that may be referred to in the Debate, but those to which I have referred are the most notable examples of the sort of thing we have in mind.
What is the position at the present time and what action has been taken? It is interesting to note that there are not less than 1,600,000 acres of common land in this country available for the public, or capable of being developed for public use in one form or another. There are various properties under the National Trust, where the most admirable work is being done for the country. A tribute must also be paid to what has been done by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. Under Section 23 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, they have made available for the public in a way that would not otherwise be the case 75,000 acres, mainly in Wales. It is very much to be hoped that this excellent example may be followed

by the authorities in the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, and by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Many liberal-minded and generous landowners are also very willing to grant facilities for the public to go upon their land of this description. There is a further possibility. Under the Finance Act it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept land in payment of Death Duties. Practically no use has been made of that provision, but it is worth following up from this point of view, because it must happen when landowners die from time to time that they have in their possession properties which they might be willing to make available for the nation along these lines.
Let me say a few words in regard to the work that is being done by the Forestry Commission. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) will be able to give us more detailed information. There is in existence the Argyll National Forest Park, which is being developed in association with the Glasgow Corporation. It covers 100 square miles, and I understand that among the camping sites available something like 10,000 personal nights, as they are defined, were made use of during last season. It will be interesting to note the different associations which have taken advantage, or are likely to take advantage of, this National Forest Park which is different from a national park. They are the Scottish Youth Hostels Association, the Scottish Ramblers' Federation, the Camping Club of Great Britain, Rover Scouts, Ranger Guides, the Scottish Association of Boys' Clubs and corresponding Girls' Associations, the Wayfaring Association, the juvenile organisations of Scotland such as Boy Scouts, Boys' Brigades, Girl Guides and Young Men's Christian Association. There are certain other areas that might possibly be developed by the Forestry Commission along similar lines, such as the Cairngorms area, where there is an opportunity of building up something like a national park on American lines. Then there is Allerston in Yorkshire, and Snowdonia. In regard to Snowdonia, there is reason to hope that through the goodwill of the Forestry Commissioners in happy co-operation with the local authorities, successful results may in due course be achieved in making Snowdonia into a national park available for the public.
I should also like to call attention to the third report of Mr. Malcolm Stewart on the Special Areas, in which he brings up the question of a national park. The area to which he referred is known as the Enchanted Vale of Neath, an area of 12 square miles. It is rather small within the meaning of a national park, but it does approach and lead up to the Brecon Mountains and the Black Mountains, which certainly would form a very suitable area. I understand that there, too, the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the Forestry Commission are doing work which may have fruitful results. Perhaps in order to develop this idea properly, we should want something on the lines of the Tennessee Vale Authority, which is an experiment in the United States at the present time. I imagine that the way to develop this area in Wales would be to provide hotels, good accommodation at farms, tea shops, camping sites and perhaps a golf course. In that way Mr. Malcolm Stewart hoped that it might be possible to attract a large number of visitors to this very beautiful area of country. Those who know the area better than I do may have something to say on the subject later.
The main problem remains, and we come back therefore to the report of 1931. That report considered the advisability of handing over the development of the national parks to some body like the National Trust, but they definitely rejected that idea as being unsuitable to meet the importance of the position. They held the view that a State authority of some kind is absolutely necessary. Two alternative recommendations were made. The first was that there should be a national authority for England and Wales, and another separate authority for Scotland, with a co-ordinating committee between the two. These national authorities should consist of five members, with a paid chairman, something, I suppose, very much like the Forestry Commission. The work of the authority would be to stimulate co-operation in the matter of planning between local authorities and land owners, and to supply them with expert aid. They suggest that there should be a sum of £100,000 each year made available for five years. Many people interested in this subject hold most strongly that a body of this character is essential if the work is to be carried out effectively.
There was a second and less ambitious alternative proposed by the National Park committee. It was suggested that on the assumption that only £10,000 a year would be available for five years, the work of stimulation and direction would be undertaken by the Ministry of Health, who would advise and direct policy, and that there should be associated with the Minister of Health in this work two advisory committees, made up of individuals and representatives of bodies who have much knowledge on this question. Since the report was presented the main event has been the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act. The view has been expressed by the Government that nothing more was needed than to allow that Act to work out its way and that the problem would become automatically solved. Perhaps that was a perfectly reasonable view to put forward, but we have had enough experience of the working of the Act to see how far it fails. I think that everyone who has any knowledge of the problem will agree that it is working far too slowly and that land is being spoiled while the authorities are endeavouring to agree upon a particular way of planning an area. One great difficulty is the absence of finance to provide the compensation to owners which is absolutely necessary in certain instances.
In talking of national parks there is no idea of purchasing vast areas. That is unnecessary. The proper control and planning of development is, as a rule, though not in all cases, probably quite sufficient. It is quite clear that action of some kind from the centre is absolutely necessary in order to stimulate and support the work of planners in the various districts. One suggestion that has been made is that this work could be undertaken by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Under their amended terms of reference they would have the authority to do it, but their Constitution would need altering. I understand that as at present constituted they are not really well fitted for the work, and they do not want to do it. Therefore, I hope that the Royal Fine Art Commission, who are doing such admirable work in other directions, will not be brought in to deal with this wholly different problem.
There remains another alternative, which I know the Government in the past have suggested as an appropriate one,


and that is to call in the advisory committee on the Town and Country Planning Act and make use of it as the central body for dealing with this problem. I am not saying that that is the best course, because I prefer the larger recommendation in the report of the committee, but it is a possibility provided that certain things are done. It is clear, for example, that that advisory committee is not at present tackling this problem at all. No doubt they could be persuaded to do so if the Government were to go to the Committee and say that they were most anxious that they should undertake the work, that the Government would back up the work with the whole of their efforts, that they would provide certain sums of money for the purpose of compensation, and that expert advice would be made available to the Committee and their staff, and that this would provide that drive and initiative which is required if this work is to be a success.
There is a possibility that something might be done through those means, but that project has the disadvantage that it is only a Departmental Committee, whereas the problem is a very much wider and more important one than concerns any one Department. For instance, we should have to co-ordinate the actions of quite a number of different Government Departments. There are concerned the Central Electricity Board, the Forestry Commission and the Defence Departments. They would want to be brought in at an early stage. Then there is the Ministry of Transport and the county councils, as the highway authorities. Lastly, there are the interests of mining and agriculture which, as important national industries, would have to be borne in mind and their interests regulated.
What I am urging upon the Government is not that they should take any one particular course, but that they should take some definite action from the centre to deal with the problem. My Motion is conceived in an entirely friendly spirit towards the Government, who, I believe, are anxious to do all they can, consistently with the public support that they may receive. I hope that it may be possible to accept the Motion. Its object is to focus and concentrate national interest upon this problem, and to achieve

some practical result before the work has been too long delayed. I appeal to the Government to consider, in the light of what may be said during the further course of the Debate, what is the wisest step they can now take. I think they will feel that it fits in with their crusade in the matter of public health, and I am sure that any resolute action they take will have an immense backing among the 45,000,000 people who live in this country, the finest country in the world.

8.1 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion, which, I apprehend, will meet with the approval of hon. Members on all sides of the House. It is not meant in any way as a criticism of Government action; very much the reverse. It is meant as a gesture of congratulation and encouragement. We all know the persistency of the Minister of Health, arid that whatever he takes on he will carry through. Therefore I say to him: Macte tua virtute puer, sic itur ad astra. Get on with the job; having made a good start, finish it. At this juncture the report of the National Parks Committee is of great interest. I do not propose to go into their recommendations in detail, and in some cases I do not think they are quite practicable. They fall under two heads: First, the housing and town planning recommendations. The Government Town Planning Act and the Ribbon Development Act have to a great extent cleared the air and done what is necessary in the circumstances, but there is a great deal to be done. The working of the Act is very slow and in the meantime beautiful parts of the country are being ruined.
The second recommendation is the preservation to the nation of areas of national interest, the beautiful English coastline, the English mountains and the places of historic interest. The acquisition and preservation of these areas, our coast line, our mountains and places of historic interest, cost money, and the amount required is a long way beyond what is available for private concerns such as the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. The report makes two recommendations as to money—namely, £100,000 per annum for five years, and £10,000 per annum for five years, and they also re-


commend a central authority. I do not recommend a central authority, because I do not think we are ready for it. The work to be done is very large and diffuse and is too much for any one body to take in hand. They also make some subsidiary recommendations, the appointment of two advisory committees to assist the Minister and to guide and stimulate local authorities. These two recommendations are extremely good.
I do not believe in a central authority at the moment, but I do trust the Minister of Health and his Department very much in this matter. They are very efficient, and if they have advisory committees to co-ordinate and stimulate local authorities I think it would be sufficient for the present. The housing part of these recommendations having been got out of the way a great push now is being made for the improvement of the physical health of the nation, and there is a great opportunity of doing something on the lines of the report. Open spaces are wanted for children and young people, and also for hiking and healthy holiday making by the general population, but there is a great danger of these beautiful spots being swept away by stupid building, which should be prevented. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give the matter their best attention. That is the line which I understand the mover of the Motion takes, and I have come to the same conclusion. The best thing to do is to leave it to the Government to consider what they had better do. If they are going to do anything they will have to arrange for the money which will be necessary. You cannot get a central advisory committee to do what is necessary in the way of co-ordinating and advising unless there is some organisation which will have to be paid for. Also, if you acquire these areas which are to be preserved you must have money to do it. I hope that the Government will go into this matter and that my hon. Friend will communicate what has been said to the Minister of Health, who I know takes a keen interest in this subject, and who, I hope, after this expression of good will and encouragement will do everything he can in the interests of the beautiful country of England.

8.10 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I am sure that all those who are interested in the preservation of the beauties of our countryside

and those who are interested in the health of the nation will be grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) for raising this subject to-night. I am sure also that my hon. Friend when he replies will give a very sympathetic answer to the questions which have been raised. By comparison with America or Africa, Great Britain is a small and densely populated country, highly developed, and it is impossible to follow closely the methods for the establishment of national parks which are employed elsewhere. But if we realise these limitations, and our special difficulties I believe there is scarcely anything which can be said against the encouragement of national parks. Perhaps we on this side of the House rather more acutely than hon. Members opposite, hope that in the establishment of national parks respect will be shown for the rights of private property. I do not say that in any selfish spirit. Landowners have been for generations the chief agents in preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the countryside, and while it may be true that we live in a period of transition and that high taxation is leading to the breaking up of large estates, I hope that for many years private landowners will be allowed to make their contribution to the beautifying of the countryside. They have not been ungenerous in the past in allowing the public access to places of beauty.
I must utter this word of warning. Parliament must ensure that in attempting to preserve the beauty of our country we do not destroy it. In the report of the National Parks Committee issued in April, 1931, Mr. Gaye, a member of the Committee, makes a reservation, and in that reservation the following remarks occur:
In Windsor Great Park and the adjacent Forest many acres of young plantations and heath are burnt every year by mischievous and careless visitors, cartloads of broken glass, paper and other rubbish have to be collected at great expense, the rhododendrons in the summer and the hollies in the winter are ruthlessly plundered. In agricultural districts I bear complaints of cattle and horses maimed by broken glass, of sheep worried by uncontrolled dogs, of fences broken and gates left open.
I do not wish to accentuate the danger of the spoliation of the countryside, but I believe careful consideration must be given to that aspect of the subject. A more liberal education and the force of example, combined with a strict enforce-


ment of by-laws, can largely prevent occurrences of that nature, but what I think would have a still greater influence in preserving the beauties of national parks would be a full realisation that national parks are national property, that they belong to the public and that if thoughtless things are done by visitors they would in fact be destroying what belongs to them. I am happy to say that in the case of the Argyll National Forest Park, which is administered by the Forestry Commission, there has been practically no ground for complaint; in fact, one neighbouring proprietor expressed by letter his appreciation of the manner in which the camps there have been conducted. Anyone who has read the report of the National Parks Commission must realise that the Forestry Committee is bound to be closely connected and intimately concerned with any development of national parks, and may I say at once that the Forestry Commission is in whole-hearted sympathy with the ideas underlying the proposal to establish a number of national parks.
In view of the important position which the Forestry Commission is bound to occupy, I hope the House will bear with me if I make one or two further observations with the object of defining more closely the attitude of the Forestry Commission, and making a few suggestions as to how the commission could assist. If time allows, I hope also to give the House a little more information than it already has with regard to the Argyll National Forest, which is administered by the Forestry Commission to-day. I hope I shall be forgiven if I remind the House that the first duty of the commission is to grow trees to provide a reserve of an essential raw material, namely, timber, for times of national emergency. The ravages of the War period have not yet been made good, and I hope the nation has not forgotten the demand for space in our ships for carrying timber during the War when we were having the utmost difficulty in providing the nation with that which is even more essential—food. If, as I know is the case, the Government are considering very carefully the difficulty of feeding the nation during a war, they must not leave out of account the relief which would be given to shipping by our being able to draw upon home-grown instead of imported timber.
I hope, therefore, that any proposal to sterilise large tracks of country, and especially to ban plantations on suitable ground, will be most carefully examined before any such policy is approved. These islands are not so large that we can afford liberally to make large areas unproductive as can be done in America. I must admit that I am one who believes that careful and thoughtful planting of trees very seldom detracts from, but nearly always enhances the amenities of the countryside. Even those well-dressed ranks of conifers, Scots pine, Sitka and Norwegian spruce, unnatural in their regularity, will some day be stately forests. The forester's axe will thin their ranks; their lines will be less regular; the Scots pine will take on an orange hue in old age; some day they will give shelter; some day, I hope, the weary town worker may find sanctuary and that peace which I believe can only be found in a forest with the giants of nature around one.
If I may assume that Parliament approves the principle of establishing national forest parks, the House may be interested to know that the Forestry Commission could increase the number of forest parks to ten or a dozen with comparatively slight expenditure of public money. We have been forced in our acquisitions to buy land which is unplantable. The Forestry Commission owns to-day something like 1,000,000 acres. Not very far short of 400,000 acres of that land is unplantable. A great deal of it is hilly or mountainous country on which no trees will grow, and it is ideal in many ways for the establishment of national forest parks. Further, the commission is constantly acquiring land in various parts of the country; we are thoroughly familiar with values, and frequently hear of impending sales of land suitable for national parks. If it should be decided to make purchases of land in districts suitable for forest parks, the Forestry Commission could do this simply and cheaply. Unfortunately, it is true that many excellent opportunities have had to be neglected when they might have been turned to the advantage of the nation.
Finally, with regard to the Argyll Forest Park, I would like to say that the Forestry Commission regards this park as something still in the nature of an experiment. From our management of the New Forest, which is the nearest


approach to a national park, we know the difficulties of reconciling sylviculture and the protection of forests with access for the public. The Argyll Park has been established with the expenditure of only £5,000 of public money for equipment. The public in that area now has access to 35,000 acres and limited access to 15,000 acres of potential forest. The House will no doubt appreciate that when woods are young and the danger of fire is very great indeed, it is necessary at certain times of the year to restrict the liberty of visitors to a forest park of this nature, but no special organisation has been set up and no additional staff has been engaged by the Forestry Commission.
The Glasgow Corporation, the Carnegie Trust and the Jubilee Trust have worked in the closest and most harmonious cooperation. Four camps have been established, Ardgartan House has been leased, and, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East has already said to-night —making use of an expression which was new to me, as I expect it was to him until he read the report—the number of those using the sites last season was 10,000 person nights. I may say in that connection that some of the camps were not available until late in the season, and the numbers are likely to be greatly increased next year. One of the most encouraging features in the life of our people is the growing desire for health-giving holidays. Hiking, rambling, and camping are rapidly growing in popularity. Let us then not only preserve, but give opportunities to the people to enjoy. I can assure the House that the Forestry Commission will do all it can to fulfil both these objects, while carrying out its primary functions of growing timber.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. HOLLINS: I do not propose to detain the House long, but I hope the brevity of my speech will not be taken as the measure of the importance which I attach to this subject. I, personally, am much indebted to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) for having introduced his Motion, and I feel it a duty on my part to the Stoke-on-Trent Council, of which I am a member, to take some part in this discussion because we have sent representatives to the National Parks Committee and have given evidence in favour of the establishment of national parks, and in particular

of a national park at Dovedale. Someone has said that there is a race at present between the despoilers of the countryside and those who are concerned with its preservation. I do not know why there should be so much hesitancy on the part of the Government about putting forward definite schemes arising out of the recommendations of the National Parks Committee. There is, I am aware, a financial consideration involved, but I hope to show later that this requirement may be considerably eased.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) that we cannot follow the practice or the methods adopted in some of the Dominions in dealing with large expanses of land under national park schemes. We have a problem here which is more acute than the problem in those countries, and which makes it even more necessary for us to have national parks. Our population is more dense in relation to the size of our country than that of any other country in the world, and it is essential that we should retain as much as possible of our open spaces and make them accessible to our people. Unless steps are taken to preserve at least some of the beauty spots of this beautiful country of ours, we shall witness the sad spectacle of their spoliation by speculative builder or by mining, quarrying and industrial operations. I am aware, as an hon. Member has already pointed out, that we must take cognisance of these latter operations, but we must not forget the demand of the open-air organisations of which there are many in the country to-day. Their representatives met in conference some time ago and they are pressing for some action in this direction.
With the increase of road traffic those who seek the open country are being driven more and more to by-roads and paths, and these are gradually being closed down, with the result that hundreds of thousands of hikers, campers and cyclists, the youth of the nation, are clamouring to-day for greater opportunities of access to some of the lovelier parts of our rural districts. The National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England are doing excellent work. At the same time we want to have some sort of national planning and national control. That can only be


achieved if the Government take into consideration proposals on the lines indicated by the Mover of this Motion, namely, national parks, nationally planned and under national control. Nothing would stimulate the health crusade better than the acceptance by the Government of the recommendations of the National Parks Committee, and I feel sure that once the Government took the step of setting up schemes for national parks there would be a generous response from landowners in the form of gifts of land. I feel confident of that from my own experience.
I can speak personally of the Dovedale proposal. I am a Staffordshire man and Dovedale is situated partly in Derbyshire and partly in North Staffordshire. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. McDougall on many occasions, and a friend of mine has written much on the proposed national park at Dovedale. The difficulties in the way of the acquisition of that 15,000 acres or 20 square miles are very small indeed because of what has already been done by Mr. McDougall himself and what has been acquired by the National Trust and by the good feeling of the landowners in that area. I wish that the claims of all districts could be met, but I know that the Dovedale scheme will cost very little. The area is in some of the most exquisite English scenery that I know, and includes two rivers, the Manifold and the Dove, and there are various vantage points commanding views over glorious country. I know every inch of the ground which is accessible but some of the more beautiful parts are not accessible.
The people of North Staffordshire have long recognised Dovedale as one of our beauty spots and we, along with the people of Derbyshire, hope that the time will soon come when the whole range of that lovely valley will be open to the public. As I say, I feel that the question of finance will not enter very largely into the project in view of the magnificent gifts of land which have already been mentioned, and I am sure that there will be more to follow. I make a special appeal to the Government to take steps to open up some of these areas by national park schemes, so that the hundreds of thousands of young people, trampers, cyclists, and others who like

to go out to the countryside may have opportunities of enjoying the beauties of their country. While I make a special plea, personally, for Dovedale, I hope that other areas which have strong claims will also be preserved to lovers of the country and will be made accessible by the removal once and for all from them of that wretched warning "Trespassers will be prosecuted."

8.34 p.m.

Mr. BOSSOM: I am sure it is unnecessary for anyone in this House to advocate the establishment of national parks. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are agreed on that one point, and I shall not attempt to deal with it further. I wish to deal shortly with two matters which, in my judgment, are seriously impeding progress in the direction indicated by hon. Members who have spoken. If you get into an aeroplane to-day and fly over some of these desirable areas, you find a blight of small houses, without any order or any arrangement whatever, and it is only a matter of time before we shall find places that should and could have been made into national parks so built on or spoiled that they cannot be used for that purpose. I think it is very important that we should try to prevent any of that sort of undesirable development.
National parks will have to be made in conjunction with the work of the town planning authorities. We cannot simply be idealistic in this matter; we have got to be practical, and we have got to get right down and define the location of these national parks, which must fit into the town planning schemes, and then what do we find? Only two weeks ago, when we were discussing town planning in this House—[An Hon. MEMBER: "And were counted out"]—there was a very good reason for that, because we had sat up all through the previous night. On that occasion the Minister called attention to certain reasons why progress had not been made in town planning generally, and one reason, I think, stuck in the minds of all of us. That was that when the Town and Country Planning Act was passed—and it had been brought in originally by the present Opposition and carried out by the present Government—everybody was generally in sympathy with that point


of view of the Town and Country Planning Act, but there were not in existence at that time enough ordnance survey maps brought up to date to make it possible to carry it forward. He made a statement that there were 4,000 ordnance survey maps needed, and le hoped that by the end of 1938 1,200 of them would be ready. That was the statement of the Minister. I realise, as a practical architect, the difficulties which you have in making the very accurate surveys that are essential, and hence I would beg of the Minister to do what he can to increase the speed of production of these maps. We do not want to wait until 1938 only to get 1,200 of the 4,000 maps so that we may have our open spaces defined. This is a point that is very well worth considering.
There is another matter that has been brought to the attention of those of us who look upon this question seriously, and that is that a good many of our local authorities do not yet seem to give appropriate consideration to town and country planning. They have not got their vision widened sufficiently. I have made it my business to get the last five advertisements for town and country planning advisers invited by various authorities. I know that the majority of the work for this town and country planning is done in the county or borough surveyor's office, or in the borough engineer's office, the office of a man who already, very often, is quite overworked, and he employs an assistant called the town planning assistant to handle the town and country planning section of his work. Here are the last five advertisements that have been published: North-East Lancashire, a own planning assistant who must be a fully qualified man and a man of experience, and they offer £300 a year; the East Sussex County Council offer £210 a year, the county borough of Halifax offer £200, the Derbyshire County Council offer £250, and the Hampshire County Council offer £250 a year. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members in this House do not think you can get a man with the experience and the training that are indispensable for this vital work, work that will affect everybody, not only in this generation but in the years to come, at a salary like that. The local authorities offer for this important work, which must be done

by trained men, who have had training such as required by the Royal Institute of British Architects, also the Town Planning Institute, or the Institute of Civil Engineers—all this training and then only offered £250 a year. I beg of the Minister to call to the attention of these local authorities that it is essential to pay commensurate salaries if they want to get this work undertaken. It cannot be done, I am sure, without.
I beg of him to take the action that has been suggested by the proposer of this Motion and to give a lead to the various local authorities. The local authorities have done good work and will do good work, but there is no one to-day whose duty it is to take the initiative in this national park situation. It is left to anybody, and I would suggest respectfully to the Minister that he gets a departmental committee, or some other committee that fits in with the general organisation of his Department, to take a lead in this matter and to suggest and give prompt advice—and I say "prompt" advisedly—to the various local authorities so that they can go ahead in this matter. I think it would be an advantage for the Minister to take sections of the very admirable National Parks Report that apply and have them reprinted and circulated to the various local authorities that they affect. We all know that these fine reports are very easily forgotten and that many pigeon holes are filled with things that are never read again, but if sections of this report were circulated in the way I have suggested, I am sure that many local authorities would appreciate it.
This proposed committee could bring the local authorities into sympathetic touch with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Trust. Very good work is being done by the Office of Works in preserving historic monuments, and around these monuments we should be able to get appropriate open spaces. There are a great many people in the hon. Gentleman's own Department who feel as deeply as we do on this matter, and they are very conscious of the risks and dangers that we are encountering by delay on this subject, for once an area is spoiled, it can never be reclaimed. We all know that, and so I sincerely hope that the Minister will receive this Motion with


sympathy and see that real action takes place in the very near future.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. SORENSEN: It is very encouraging to all of us to find that on all sides it is recognised that Britain is being invaded at the present time by a sinister army of vandals and that from all parts there is not only anxiety as to the issue of that invasion, but a deep desire to take some measures to save England from being overthrown by it. We must recognise that already, unfortunately, a great deal of the rural England that we all appreciate has passed from us for all time. Any of us who travel about this "green and pleasant land" must have been struck by the large areas of green and pleasant places that are steadily disappearing. We go into some area that perhaps we visited 15 or 20 years ago, we look around to see where it is, and we find that it is somewhere in that spot, buried, unfortunately, beneath hideous monuments of bricks and mortar. Still, however, there are many areas that remain, and I am very anxious indeed that from the Government benches we shall have an endorsement of the very fine plea that has been made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton(Mr. Mander) for the presevation of some of the rural treasures of the country.
I speak, naturally, as a democrat—and I hope that most Members of this House speak from the same angle—in the sense that I speak on behalf, not only of those who, because of their financial position, can always have access to some vast area of rural beauty, but for those who are not in that position but who nevertheless are now securing more leisure, and therefore more liberty than their forefathers possessed to see something of the England that is beyond the end of the street. It is that democracy in which we are interested, the democracy that unfortunately is still limited by the work it has to perform, by the place where it has to live and still choked very largely by the very smoke that pours out of the chimneys of the factories where it earns its daily bread.
I want to assure hon. Members opposite that, although there may be less opportunity on the part of the working class to see and enjoy the real England that some of us know, the hunger for that

England is there all the time—a very real and deep hunger. When once an opportunity is given to satisfy it, it is most moving to find how eagerly there is a response. We are all suffering to-day from an overdose of bricks and mortar, which accounts perhaps for our spiritual dyspepsia, but the youth of to-day are showing full well that before heavy domestic burdens settle on them they are intent on experiencing as much of the peace, the beauty and the health of the countryside as they possibly can. It is encouraging, when one realises to-day that though there is often a cynical sophistication in certain quarters and that though that may be true of some, there are many others who have found the antidote to that in the wide spaces of the countryside. The leisure which is the inheritance of an increasing number of people to-day would, I am sure, if only the opportunity were given, be enjoyed in the countryside, seeing and enjoying the real treasures of our own land.
If that is to be secured, obviously some action must be taken in order to prevent some of those treasures from being stolen. Unfortunately, when one mentions the very word "park" it conjures up in one's mind one of those oases in a wilderness of bricks surrounded by railings, as if, indeed, we were afraid that the very grass might be taken from us. The interpretation of the word "park" must be more generous. We must not think of a few pathetic acres in the centre of our cities neatly, far too neatly, ordered and regulated, but of vast areas left, as far is it is humanly possible, in their natural state so that we can roam freely through the countryside without being directed by a superfluity of notices and regulations. All of us on these benches agree with one hon. Member opposite in his protest against what are called "litter-louts." I would urge him to realise that these litter-louts are not by any means confined to those who come from the industrial areas of the town. In fact, I think a good deal of the criticism of some of the ramblers over the countryside on that basis is much exaggerated.
I live next door to what we call, if not a national park, a municipal park; I mean that it is not one of those little oases to which I have referred, but one of the great contributions that the City


of London has made to this country—Epping Forest. Knowing Epping Forest very well, and appreciating all its rural beauties, and leaving it every day for this place as I do, sometimes with great regret, I can say emphatically that any accusation that the people of London are spoiling that very precious treasure is certainly grossly exaggerated. I do not say that there have not been on occasion evidence of misbehaviour and the like, and an insensibility to the real inheritance that is ours, but what can one expect when, after all, we have thousands of people herded in towns and cities. When they are let loose for a while in some green and pleasant place, it is not surprising that their return to the countryside is sometimes marked by a trail of broken bottles and paper bags. Those instances are very few, however. The great majority soon learn the art of treasuring the countryside, and I am certain that, although we do well. to appeal to all to treat the countryside with the respect it deserves, the appeal need only be given to that very small minority who as yet, unfortunately, have not learned, as they should have learned, to treat the countryside with respect.
I had hoped that some word of approbation could have been uttered to-night with regard to the excellent effort of the London County Council to create a national park round London. I am sure that there is sufficient detachment from party politics in the House at the moment to enable an expression of appreciation to be given to those who in the London County Council are trying their utmost to prevent London from sprawling still further into the countryside. If we can preserve round London that green belt, not merely as a well-regulated, pleasant place and a recreation ground, but as a real park, I am certain that London will be an infinitely finer place and that Londoners themselves will learn to appreciate their city far more than they have done in the past. It is true, unfortunately, that in many parts of the country the vandalism to which I have referred has advanced menacingly and devastatingly, not through any inducement on the part of those who sit on these benches, or through any incitement on the part of the working-man and woman, but because of the narrow greed of those who see an

opportunity for exploiting the countryside in their own interests and do so without any reservations.
It is said that there are people who, when they see a lovely morning, almost instinctively say, "It is a fine morning, let us go out and kill something," There are those, too, who seem almost intuitively to say, when they see a pleasant place, "Here is a lovely view, let us blotch it with a wretched building." Many of the fair places of England have been spoiled and degraded, not through working men, not through the greater leisure that democracy has secured, but through the blind folly and the narrow greed of those who have no soul above bank balances and full pockets. Surely they have to be taught, as all of us have had to learn, that in the end the gracious things in life are those which we can share together and that it is far better that the countryside should be enjoyed by all than be a secluded spot to be enjoyed by a few. We all recognise that the old landowners of the past have contributed something to the heritage of England by preserving vast areas of land and by developing within those areas the resources that are there; they have left areas that have delighted our eyes and left an imprint of beauty on our memories. Those days are gone. The days when the old landowner could be relied upon to preserve vast tracts of rural England have passed away.
In these days of swift transport, of greater leisure, of an expanding population, in these days of an enlightened and hungry democracy, we cannot rely upon these old landowners; we have to rely upon our own communal and public effort. I trust it will be realised that, while some applaud the efforts of men and women and public authorities to preserve certain tangible treasures of the past, after all these treasures, which are herded in museums, are not to be compared in value with those national treasures which will never fade away but which, in fact, become of increasing value as years pass by. It is far more necessary that we should preserve the real beauty of England for us all to enjoy than that we should preserve the British Museum. The British Museum chiefly contains the relics of the past, whereas the England we want to preserve surely contains the potentialities of a great and wonderful future.

8.55 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It might, perhaps, be for the convenience of hon. Members if I intervened for a few moments to say a word or two about this Motion. I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) for raising this question, and certainly I am indebted to him, because his doing so has involved my having to make myself acquainted in some detail with an extraordinarily interesting subject, and one which, I think, is of general interest to the nation, and apparently, judging by the number of hon. Members who still want to speak, of considerable interest to this House. It certainly is extraordinarily appropriate to-day, in connection with the campaign we hope to launch for a fitter Britain and, certainly, for a fitter young Britain. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton mentioned the National Parks Committee of 1931, and quite rightly drew attention, as did a subsequent speaker from the benches opposite, to the fact that the committee, after taking evidence, came unanimously to the conclusion that this country was not suitable for the institution of national parks such as those we read of in the United States, Canada or South Africa. The committee went on to say that what they had in mind could better be achieved if development was controlled, and if steps were taken to try to prevent spoliation by building. They suggested that the best means would be the granting to local authorities of much wider powers than they enjoyed under the then existing Town Planning Act.
The National Parks Committee went on to suggest that the areas of the country which require safeguarding in the national interest are divisible into two categories. The first category they called national reserves, meaning areas of sufficient importance to be of interest to the nation as a whole. They suggested a second category of regional reserves, which would contain areas of beauty or amenities of special interest to individual industrial areas. In the first category, said the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, they gave as examples of what they had in mind the Lake District, Snowdonia—and I confess to wondering how anybody invented such a

perfectly hideous name—the Broads, part of the Pembrokeshire Coast, the Forest of Dean, and areas of that nature. Among the regional reserves they suggested as the sort of thing they had in mind the High Peak area of Derbyshire, the Forest of Howland, Cannock Chase and certain areas round London.
The House will, I am sure, be glad to recall that the wider powers suggested were, in fact, given to local authorities in the Act of 1932, and the really practical question that we have to ask ourselves to-night is whether those powers, which are adequate in theory, are in fact being made use of to achieve the purpose we have in view. As regards what the National Parks Committee called national reserves, I have, I think, a satisfactory account to give. Planning schemes are either in operation or under active preparation for the Lake District, for the Broads, and for parts of the coast lines of Lincolnshire and Pembrokeshire. A committee is on the point of being set up for Snowdonia. The Forest of Dean is actually being dealt with. As regards the regional reserves the High Peak district, Cannock Chase, the Forest of Howland and a large area of South Devon, including parts of Dartmoor, are already being dealt with. And, as hon. Members know, a considerable area round London has already been dealt with.
I will deal in a moment with the question of finance, but I would like to remind the House that under the Town and Country Planning Act local authorities have, in fact, power to include any place of natural beauty, or whose amenities require to be preserved, in a scheme, and that the Act applies to all areas whether they have been developed or not. Therefore, in theory at all events, the Act does provide very considerable powers, and does carry out, I think I can fairly claim, the major portion of the recommendations of the National Parks Committee. I have said that these schemes are in operation or are in preparation, and the House will remember that in the Debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 18th November I said that interim control, the important preliminary stage, was in fact in operation over a very large portion indeed of this country. Little has been done in the way of planning in Wales, but the House will realise that


the need is not so urgent in Wales, because little or no development has actually taken place or is in contemplation. As I pointed out on that occasion, considering that owing to unavoidable delay the Act of 1932 has really only been in effective operation since 1935, I think we can take a certain amount of credit for the local authorities for having got on as far as they have.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he say if anything has been done with reference to Dovedale?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will deal with Dovedale when I come to what was said by the hog. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins), because I have a suggestion to make.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I should like to ask whether the Lake District scheme covers the whole of the Lake District. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that all is being brought in under the action now being taken?

Mr. HUDSON: I could not say offhand, but I will make inquiry and let the hon. Member know before I sit down. Of course, in addition to the purely town planning activities of the local authorities a great deal is also being done in the way of extending open spaces and playing fields. For the purposes of my speech to-night I got out such information as we have about the areas that are available within the boundaries of some of the greater local authorities. The information is not complete, but I think I have enough to give some indication to the House. The National Playing Fields Association have said that in their view a reasonable standard would be the provision of five acres of public open space per 1,000 of a town's population. Fifteen of the great boroughs and corporations of England with populations exceeding 200,000, such as Birmingham, Bradford, Cardiff, Nottingham, Liverpool, and so forth, cover a total population of just about 6,000,000. They are shown at present as having open spaces under the control of their councils amounting to just over 20,000 acres. Arithmetic reveals that that represents about three and one-third acres per 1,000 of their populations. I am not saying that that is perfect, but it means that considerable strides have been made towards

the figure suggested by the Playing Fields Association, of five acres per 1,000.
Hon. Members will probably be interested to have the figures in respect of loans which have been authorised for the acquisition of land, and which will serve as an illustration of the further progress which has been made. They are purely the cost of the acquisition of land; the loans that have been sanctioned are actually higher, because they include the cost of the provision of amenities and layout. These are the figures for the actual acquisition of land: In 1927, £527,000; in 1928, £707,000; in 1929, £615,000; and in 1930, £979,000. During the period from 1931 to 1933, the figures dropped, owing to economic and financial difficulties. In 1934 the figure leapt up again, and was £961,000. Last year it rose to over £1,000,000. Those figures show that local authorities have been active during the past few years in acquiring additional open spaces, and they show the extent to which public opinion has been effective in this important aspect of the work of local authorities.
In addition to the open spaces which I have mentioned, there is the National Trust who own some 60,000 acres, very largely acquired through the action of generous donors, and we have the not unimportant item of 1,600,000 acres of commons. That is the figure ordinarily accepted; it is based, I think, upon the figures of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society. I do not accept authority for it, but I think it may be roughly correct. It includes such items as Ilkley Moor.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: 'Baht 'at?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes. It includes also Hampstead Heath. Indeed London is particularly fortunate because it has no fewer than 74 commons within 15 miles of Charing Cross.
Now, as to the Lake District; perhaps I may give the answer to the hon. Gentleman who asked me a question. I am informed that each of the counties concerned is represented upon the advisory co-ordinating committee of the three counties. This committee was formed at the instigation of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I will find out more on this point to-morrow, and send further information to the hon. Gentleman. Now I come to the all-important question of finance.

Mr. EDE: Is the hon. Gentleman returning to the question of commons and to the specific recommendation about commons in the National Park Committee's report?

Mr. HUDSON: As a matter of fact, the Committee went into this matter very carefully, but I am afraid I have not the reference to it in the Committee's report. Could the hon. Gentleman quote it?

Mr. EDE: Yes, Sir. On page 42, the report says:
We recommend a survey to be made into all lands which were subject to the rights of common on 1st January, 1926.
I asked the late Minister of Agriculture a question last Session as to whether he proposed to introduce legislation this Session to authorise county councils to make that survey, and he said that he was considering the matter. One result of his consideration was that he was promoted to another office.

Mr. HUDSON: That rather lets me out of having to answer the hon. Member's question.

Mr. EDE: No, it gives the hon. Gentleman his opportunity.

Mr. HUDSON: Let me now turn to the important question of finance. I have heard it suggested—I think some hon. Members were on the point of saying to-night, although I did not actually hear them say so—that a good deal of the work that we want to see done under the Town and Country Planning Act was unlikely to be achieved, because many local authorities had not sufficient finance or resources. In other cases I have heard it suggested that local authorities, especially county councils in sparsely inhabited areas, are very reluctant to spend, on compensation, the money which would be involved in sterilising large areas of ground, because they do not see why they should spend their ratepayers' money upon schemes for the benefit of townsfolk from distant industrial towns. There is misapprehension on that point, and I would like to try to clear it up.
I will begin by saying that we all sympathise, of course, with local authorities in that position. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will realise that all local authorities are not as rich as his county council. There is a way out.

The Acts at present provide that an industrial town, say, a large borough, may spend its ratepayers' money upon helping another authority to obtain and sterilise land and prevent its being built upon. I do not think that the existence of that power is sufficiently publicly known, and, if the House will forgive me, I would like to read the relevant Sections of the Acts so that it may obtain publicity. Section 158 of the Local Government Act, 1933, specifically says:
A local authority may, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the appropriate Minister, acquire by agreement, whether by way of purchase, lease, or exchange, any land whether situate within or without the area of the local authority for any purpose for which the local authority are authorised by this or any other public general Act to acquire land, notwithstanding that the land is not immediately required for that purpose.
The Public Health Act, 1875, defines one of the purposes for which a local authority can own land as parks and open spaces, but that definition has been held not to cover what I may call the Green Belt activity. For instance, a local authority could not be allowed to purchase a farm and to relet it as a farm, under the 1875 Act. Under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, they have definitely been given the power to acquire that sort of land, even though it is in the area of another authority, provided that the land is subject to a town planning scheme. It is open to them to go to a rural area and to say to the local authority: "You have a beauty spot. It would be of great advantage if it were preserved for the inhabitants of our borough. We quite realise that you cannot afford to sterilise it yourselves, but if you are willing either to purchase it or to include it in a town planning scheme in such a way as to sterilise it and prevent its being built upon we, the borough, will go to the Ministry of Health and ask their sanction for the necessary expenditure from our rates, to help you to preserve something which is of value and benefit to our ratepayers." I hope that the fact that this Debate has been raised to-night will result in publicity being given to these powers.
While I am on the same subject, I may mention that there is a further provision of the law to which I do not think


sufficient attention has been paid. That is the power which enables landowners to sterilise their land by agreement with local authorities. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for South Shields for calling my particular attention to this point. This power has a double-barrelled advantage. In the first place it saves the local authorities a good deal of expense which they might otherwise have to incur for compensation for sterilisation. On the other hand, it is of considerable advantage to the landowner, or rather to his children, because when he dies the Inland Revenue will only assess his land for Death Duties at what I may call for brevity the diminished value inherent in that land owing to the fact that it has been made subject to restrictions against building.
That provision again, as far as we know, is not widely known, and certainly it has not been taken advantage of as widely as I hope it will be. As a concrete example of what can be done under it, I would cite the case of the Hailsham rural scheme. That is a scheme covering 20,000 acres, of which no less than 10,000 were preserved, without any cost to the local authority, as a result of voluntary action by some 25 landowners, of whom the biggest were Lieut.-Colonel Gwynne, with some 1,400 acres, Lord Gage with 1,100, the Eastbourne Water Company—and I particularly include them, because I think it is worthy of notice that a large corporation like that could do it—with 2,000, and Mr. Brown and Mr. Michalinos with something over 700 acres each.
In addition to what I have already explained, there is, of course, what is known as the Green Belt. London, with the cooperation of the Surrey County Council and the Middlesex County Council—or perhaps, in order to avoid any risk of criticism, I should say the Surrey County Council and the Middlesex County Council with the help of London—have combined together and with great public spirit have acquired a considerable area of land round London. I personally hope that the example of London, Surrey and Middlesex, not to mention Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent and Bucks, will be followed by large county councils surrounding some of the more important industrial towns in the Midlands and in the North.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hanley with regard

to Dovedale. I am not acquainted with the details of the Dovedale transaction, and therefore what I say now must be taken with a certain reserve, but it seems to me to indicate the nature of the situation that arises where a good deal of land has already been given to the National Trust, and where the completion of the scheme depends on a comparatively small area of land. That is one of the sort of opportunities that exist for bringing into operation the powers of a local authority under Section 30 of the Act of 1932. One of the neighbouring boroughs which had enough money could quite easily go to the local authority in whose area Dove-dale is—I am assuming that the local authority has not enough money to do it —and say, "If you will include it in your town planning scheme, we will ask the Ministry of Health to allow us to contribute to the cost." I must not be taken as saying that that is possible in this particular instance, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details, but, judging by the description given by the hon. Member, it looks as though that is the kind of case in which this power might be applied, and even if it does not apply to Dovedale it must apply in many areas around industrial towns in the Midlands.
The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) talked about the hunger of people for the country. I quite agree. There is no doubt at all that London has seen and shown how the people, once the opportunities are given to them, will take advantage of these facilities. I asked the Southern Railway to get out for me some figures for the purposes of this Debate to-night, and they have been kind enough to do so. I am very grateful to them for the trouble they have taken. I do not suggest that other railways could not give the same sort of figures, but it was the Southern Railway that I asked. They tell me that within the last 12 months no fewer than 25,000 people have left London on a Sunday to take advantage of the conducted rambling tours, quite apart from the many thousands who leave on Saturdays and other days with cheap tickets under what I believe is called the "Go as you please" programme.
They have also given me some figures showing the total numbers of tickets collected at some of the stations which serve these beauty spots. I have not


time to give them all, but will give one or two which seem to me to be particularly striking. The number of tickets collected at Kew Bridge and Kew Gardens in one year was 818,000; at Banstead, 303,000; at Dorking, 316;000; at Purley, 526,000, and at Horsham 267,000. Of course, in addition, there are the people who go out by the omnibuses and coaches of the London Passenger Transport Board. This shows the extent to which people in London are taking advantage of the opportunities they are being given.
The hon. Member for West Leyton also mentioned the question of litter, and it was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) in his admirable speech. I was talking the other day to the education director of my own county of Lancashire, and he told me that he was getting extraordinarily good results in that direction from the elementary school children by impressing upon them that the places to which they were asked to go really belonged to them—an idea which I personally think is very sound—that they are not there as trespassers, but they are there as part owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear that there is general agreement as to the advantage of trying to inculcate that kind of idea.
I take it that it is hardly necessary for me to say anything to-night about the physical advantages of open spaces. Doctors, I suppose, disagree on many things, but I imagine they agree that there are three fundamental advantages of open-air exercise over indoor exercise. The first is—and I imagine that no one would agree with me in this more than the hon. Member for Derby, who is one of the best exponents of open-air exercise—the great stimulus it gives to the "energy output" of the body. The second is the freedom from dust. One has only to go into a gymnasium and look at a sunbeam coming through the window to see how, with the best will in the world in keeping the floor in the best' condition, there is nevertheless a large amount of dust. I am not going to suggest that, in a climate like ours, we can do without facilities for indoor exercise, but at all events it is clear that, however much we may increase those facilities in our forthcoming campaign, it is

equally if not more important to see that there are adequate facilities for exercise in the open and moving air. The third, and I think probably the most important advantage, in view of the increased strain of modern life, which tends to be lived more and more indoors—in offices and workshops and factories—lies in the complete and stimulating change of taking exercise out of doors, which is bound to have a first-class psychological effect. I do not think that we can emphasise too much the effect on the health of people of being able to give them plenty of opportunities for exercise in the open air. My final point is to emphasise what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash about the activities of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. MANDER: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to his final point, may I ask him whether he is going to say something about central guidance in this matter?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East suggested that it was necessary to have a co-ordinating body, and that the present advisory council for town planning was probably the appropriate body. He will remember that we had similar suggestions three weeks ago when we were discussing town planning, and I pointed out that, in fact, it was the small schemes which were going ahead the fastest, and that when you started to bring the larger regional bodies in it was—to use that blessed word—co-ordination which caused the delay. He will remember that I said that 10 schemes a month were being submitted for approval under the Town and Country Planning Act. The rate is, I am glad to say, being maintained, and we have grounds for hoping that it will be accelerated. At the moment no fewer than 144 schemes have been adopted locally and are awaiting submission to the Ministry. We do not believe that to entrust this particular job to the advisory council would help. It suffers from the drawback that it is a technical committee. I doubt whether it contains the personnel most appropriate for the job which the hon. Member has in mind. A great deal has been done in a short time.

Mr. MANDER: All the hon. Gentleman has done is to say that this particular body is not a suitable one for central


guidance. Will he tell us an alternative body which he thinks could do this in accordance with the recommendation of the committee?

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say first what I have to say with regard to the Forestry Commission. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash gave a brief description, which I confess was news to me until I saw the papers to-day, of a new experiment which was being started by the Forestry Commission, and which they call the National Forest Park. From his description, and from what I saw in the papers, it seems to me an admirable experiment. You have, for instance, a large area extending from Carlisle right across to Newcastle over which you can walk uninterruptedly on Forestry Commission land. That affords a useful way out. I do not see why it should be beyond the wit of man to co-ordinate the work of the Forestry Commission, the National Trust, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and the various youth movements and youth hostels so that they can together make use of the magnificent opportunities which are evidently possible.
I have endeavoured to give a picture as shortly as I could of what is actually going on. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said that we want a guiding hand. It would ill become me to sing the praises of my own Department, but, after all, we are here to guide and help local authorities when they are in doubt. To-night I have tried to show and obtain publicity for practical suggestions which we have to make. The planning of those areas which were mentioned by the committee is actually being done. I hope that I have said enough to show that we have carried out what we believe were the most important recommendations of that committee. I hope also, that the House will agree that in the short time in which this policy has been in operation, we can show substantial results.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I am sure that we have listened with great interest to the illuminating speech which the Parliamentary Secretary has given us. We realise that he has taken the matter into consideration sympathetically, and we sin-

cerely hope that as a result of this discussion something will be done without further delay. Just immediately after the National Parks Committee's report was published, the crisis of 1931 came along. That, of course, involved the shelving of the committee's recommendations, seeing that they involved expenditure of a certain amount of money. It seems to me that this matter should now be tackled in earnest and that some scheme, either the scheme recommended by the National Parks Committee or some other scheme of equal usefulness, should be taken in hand. After all, the committee that reported was a very strong committee of experts and they gave the greatest possible attention to the matter, and on that account the Government should take their recommendations into favourable consideration. The urgency of immediate action in this matter is pointed out in one of the paragraphs of the report which emphasises the need of adequate measures for preserving the countryside, and this need is accentuated by the rapid progress of urbanisation, the extension of transport facilities, changes in land ownership and other modern developments. These are points that have been accelerated considerably since that report was published, and therefore it is vitally important that something should be done without further delay.
I should have liked to have appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had been here, for generous consideration of this matter. It cannot be left solely to local authorities. In many cases it is impossible for local authorities to tackle this question, and without some financial assistance and some central board which would co-ordinate all this work and initiate it in some cases very little will be done. The recommendation that £500,000 be spent over five years was most reasonable, and if carried out would help us to go a long way on the road we all desire. As to the need for some authority with extensive power, I can speak from personal experience. I was hon. secretary of the Cannock Chase National Park Committee, which was formed in 1930, before the report of the National Parks Committee came out. Cannock Chase is one of the most beautiful of our open places in England and it is calling aloud for preservation. There are 25 square miles of very charming


high moorland, with swelling hills, parted by deep gullies, with many pretty streamlets, and covered with bracken and heath.
That may seem a very curious description of a chase in South Staffordshire, which people who do not know it always consider as synonymous with the Black Country, but I can assure hon. Members that Cannock Chase, though it is within a few miles of industrial works of various kinds, is one of the most beautiful parts of the Midlands. It is commonlandin large measure, and it is for that reason that we have particular difficulty in dealing with it. Part has been taken over by the Forestry Commissioners on a 999 years lease, and I believe all the land that is to be planted has already been planted. I rejoice at the work of the Forestry Commission, though I have heard complaints from residents that so much of the land has been afforested that it is preventing the access of people who wish to stroll through the chase. Under this chase there are valuable coal measures, which are being worked from one side of the chase itself, and, if nothing is done there, there is great fear that, say in 25 years, or even less, much of what is now a most beautiful park will be desecrated by pit mounds and shafts.
We are delighted to know of the wonderful progress that has been made at Dovedale. That has been rendered possible largely by the fact that Dove-dale is under private ownership, and therefore it has been possible to buy the land and dedicate it for this purpose. Cannock Chase is common land and, although those who hold manorial rights are all favourable, as I know from personal experience, to its preservation as it is, there are difficulties caused by joint ownership, and also by the fact of these coal measures, which it is quite impossible for private negotiations to get over. Moreover, we have a number of local authorities in the district and it is impossible to get them together and to unite on one policy.
I should like to confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary has said with regard to the good work that has been done by the Town and Country Planning Committee. We have a very excellent committee dealing with the area but,

unfortunately, they cannot deal with what is really the greatest trouble and fear, namely, the question of the working of these coal measures. It is a very serious question indeed and one which, if it is not dealt with in a large way, will ultimately spoil one of the most beautiful parts of England. Only a public authority, it seems to me, can cope with it. The House will understand why we are so anxious to preserve this beauty spot for all time. Although the population is very small in the area, within a radius of 20 miles there are 2,000,000 people, and it is therefore of great importance that this Chase should be preserved for ever for the use of the public. If once it could be dedicated as a national park, the cost of maintenance would be very low. It is a natural chase, and everyone desires that it should be left in a natural way, without any of the modern improvements of roadmaking, which would tend to spoil it.
What I have said about Cannock Chase is, I am sure, typical of other attractice areas of natural beauty in this beautiful land, and it seems to me that a national authority, on the lines set out in the National Parks Committee's report, is by far the best method of approach. If the Minister of Health can find an equally effective method, we shall be only too glad. May I quote part of the concluding paragraph of the National Parks Committee's report:
We desire to record our conviction that such measures as we have advocated are necessary if the present generation is to escape the charge that in the short-sighted pursuit of its immediate needs it squandered a noble heritage.
These are good, fine words and they must be borne in mind. They were written five years ago, and since then great changes have taken place, not only in the area but throughout the whole country. The sands are running out and every year's delay renders the object we all have in view more difficult. I would appeal to the Minister of Health to see that some recommendations are put before the House at the earliest possible moment so that we can make a step forward in this very important direction.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: It is a good thing that so many who have spoken are in agreement on the general principle that something must be done, and done


speedily, to preserve natural beauty spots from spoliation and damage. We have on the Statute Book already a number of Acts which give us power to deal with the matter. The problem is really one of getting these Acts administered. I want to suggest that, quite apart from national parks, we have to consider, not just the beauty spots, but the country as a whole. I think the whole country is beautiful, except certain areas which have been spoiled by industrial development, and even they might be made better in course of time. What we really want is something that will deal with the country as a whole. We have that in the Town Planning Act, if it is carried out. Mention has been made of the Forest of Dean, the constituency for which I sit. The Parliamentary Secretary says that steps have already been taken to start a planning scheme there. I am inclined to think that he is intelligently anticipating, because I do not know that anything has been definitely done in this connection.
I should like to know, if possible, whether anything really is being done. Here you have a national park; not only a beauty spot, but an industrial area and an agricultural area, and you have to see how the future development of towns and industry will take place and to secure that it shall not damage the amenities of that district. You have a. national park in the sense that the Crown is the principal landowner. You have a national estate there, in fact. I should like to know how far the Forestry Commission have been brought into any discussions and plans that are being prepared for this project. I am sure that the Forestry Commission would, if they were informed about it, take the necessary action, but somehow I feel that there is not that contact between the various authorities concerned. It is a complicated matter. We have the Forestry Commission, the county councils and the rural and urban district councils, and all three have to work together, and I do not feel that there is that contact between them such as is necessary in a place like Dean Forest. In large wide areas where the Crown is not the principal owner and the landowning is private, it is a question of plans for development being worked out by the county councils and rural and urban district councils alone. They have to aim at the controlling of building operations.
Mention has been made of a green belt round London. But you want green belts elsewhere. You want them in the counties. I should like to see parishes reserved against building and housing schemes, and those schemes arranged for other parishes, with the necessary compensation being paid as is provided under the Town Planning Act. Green belts everywhere in fact. The Gloucestershire County Council in this matter has been progressive and is hard at work preparing plans along these lines. I think that other county councils are doing the same, but there are others which are very backward, particularly among the urban and rural district councils, whose co-operation is necessary in this matter, but of whom many are doing literally nothing at all. The county council cannot get ahead very well unless it has the co-operation of these local district councils. On the question of housing, I should like to see the Ministry of Health take some steps to advise the urban and rural district councils in regard to the type of houses to be built. I am afraid that there are cases where the local authorities are worse sinners almost than the private speculative builders in erecting a type of house in the countryside which is thoroughly unsatisfactory and out of keeping with the type of country in which the house is built. One knows of cases where great red brick houses are erected in districts where there is grey limestone, like on the Cotswold Hills. I know of plenty of this sort of case and even of rural authorities permitting this offence. I know similarly of cases in red sandstone or red clay districts where stone houses are erected with slate roofs, a type of building entirely out of keeping with the amenities of the district.
Not very long ago I had occasion to sell a plot of my own land to a rural district council for the purpose of constructing agricultural labourers dwellings, and I succeeded in getting inserted in the contract a provision whereby the council should consult the representative of the Council for, the Preservation of Rural England with a view to getting his consent and approval of the plans, but I found that the district council itself was tied down to a certain type of building and design and that very little latitude appeared to be allowed to it. The representative of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England had very


little that he could recommend because his choice of materials and design was limited. I understood at the time that this was due to the regulations of the Ministry of Health. I want very much to know if that really is the case and whether the Ministry do tie down the local authorities to a specific type of house I Cannot they in this matter have a little imagination and allow more latitude in regard to the type of house which the local authority can erect?
I am afraid that it is the Department concerned which is drawing up and approving the plans and sending them out without any idea in what sort of places these houses are to be constructed. I think that it is necessary that the Government Department concerned should be helpful and give a lead to the local authorities in regard to dealing with this matter. Moreover, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that some thing more is needed at the centre to take control of this problem. We do not want too much bureaucracy in these matters, or too much centralisation. There is a great deal to be said for local initiative. Much of our government is done on the basis of local initiative, and our local government is well developed, and long may it remain so, but even if the increased powers are not given at the centre there should be better coordination and more initiative in taking steps to bring the various authorities together—the Forestry Commission, the Commissioner for Crown Lands, the county councils and the urban and rural district councils. The lead in this matter can only come from the Government Department concerned who should facilitate as far and as soon as possible the working out of plans for our countryside, so as to see to it that our great national heritage which is in danger of disappearing shall be planned both in regard to the development of industry and of buildings, and that sufficient open spaces be left, not only for the townspeople—God forbid, I realise the need for them also to have these open spaces for which their lungs and their bodies crave—but also for the inhabitants of the countryside who shall not see the country in which they have lived and which they have loved destroyed by the developments of this modern age.

Mr. HUDSON: With regard to the Forest of Dean, I understand that the local authorities under the aegis of the county council have set up a joint planning committee for the area. I think I am correct in saying that interim development control is in operation. As regards the design of houses, it is true that they were in 1931, cut down owing to cost, but in the last 18 months I gather that greater latitude has been allowed and the Minister has called the special attention of the local authorities to the imperative need for decent design and decent standards in the houses.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. HANNAH: It is not possible to exaggerate the importance of the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). It is true that England for a very long time to come will be what this generation shall make it. At the present time development is going forward on such a vast scale that it will be impossible seriously to alter what we arrange in the next few years. I would specially urge not merely the careful preservation of famous buildings but well-known buildings of the average kind, also old-fashioned cottages in our villages which really give something of the local atmosphere. My great objection to the council houses, admirable in their way, is their uniformity. You get the same sort of houses in Berwick, Cornwall, Wick, and in every part of the country. There are in old England houses of delightful local character and of local material. I have no sympathy whatever for distatorships, but having visited Germany and various other countries under that form of government recently, and realising the way in which they are attempting to keep all their old buildings, not merely in towns such as Hildesheim, where they are being kept as national museums, or national curiosities, but in great industrial cities like Hanover, where they are trying to preserve every old street and building. In that way, and that alone, I sometimes feel inclined to say, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Nazi," but I would not barter our democratic traditions even for that good work.
It has been pointed out with a great deal of truth that what we do cannot be effective for a considerable time, and yet I am immensely impressed by the


magnificent work that is being done in what may be considered one of the grandest parts of the black country, by the Urban District Council of Coseley, in my own division, where by planning and by laying out gardens among old slag heaps a really beautiful park has been established. I want that work to be carried out on a very much larger scale. It is a part of the country to which the Mover of the Motion and myself belong. A tremendous amount of work might be done in the black country which, in earlier days, was probably one of the loveliest parts of the country, if the slag heaps could be turned into gardens and if on a large scale re-afforestation could be carried out. That is a work to which the unemployed could be put. It is not a matter of making work to keep people occupied but an urgent national duty.
While there are a large number of people unemployed in ordinary industry, I do not think it possible to find ways in which they could better be occupied in bringing again forests, gardens, parks and all those really beautiful things to parts of the country that are rather drab as a result of the most unfortunate industrialisation of the Victorian age. Therefore, I hope the Government will take up from every point of view the preservation of our beautiful England, the re-afforestation of country areas that have been spoiled in recent times and the employment of people who at present have no work. I hope they will vigorously push on with this most important work. There could be nothing more important than the appearance of our beloved land for generations yet to be.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. EDE: In spite of the kind references of the Parliamentary Secretary to myself, for which I thank him, I heard his speech with some disappointment. As one who has had to give a good deal of his time in trying to carry out this work in a district where it is comparatively easy, I am sure that it is not going to be carried out effectively without something more than advice from the central Government. It is comparatively easy in counties like Surrey, with their very high rateable value per head of population, together with the very generous assistance that has been

given to them by the present London County Council, to deal with the problem that confronts us, but when one gets into other parts of the country it is a very different story.
One goes to rural district councils in those parts and they point out the double difficulty with which they are confronted. They have the chance of seeing certain land developed which will produce the rateable value of which they are urgently in need, but in producing that rateable value they destroy what we all desire to preserve. If they are prevented they not only have to lose the rateable value but to compensate the landowner for not producing the rateable value. That is the double difficulty that confronts them, and many county councils are very little more than an aggregation of rural district councils. While the dictum that the poor should help the poor is generally observed among individuals, it is not seriously practised among poor local authorities. I can assure the Minister that it would have heartened those on all sides of the House who are interested in this matter if he could have indicated that he and his Department would be willing not merely to offer their advice, which is valuable and costly to them, but is not very helpful to us in financing these matters, but that in certain places the Ministry and the Treasury would be willing to assist financially. I regret to have to say that we heard his statement on that point with very considerable disappointment.
There are one or two points arising from the report of the National Parks Committee to which I should like to refer. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the question of the commons. Even in connection with a thing like the London green belt the problems confronting different counties vary very largely in accordance with the extent to which the commons were or were not enclosed during the great enclosure period. Middlesex has very few commons left and, therefore, has had to buy very big continuous tracts of country in order to establish anything like a green belt, but Surrey is a county where very few commons were enclosed, and where some commons which were legally enclosed have never been physically enclosed. One of these places which comes in the green belt, called Ockham Common, along the


Portsmouth Road, near the Wisley Hut, was a legally enclosed common, but not physically enclosed, and at any moment the Dowager Countess of Lovelace, the owner, if so minded, could have erected fences or have sold that desirable and beautiful tract of country and robbed the Portsmouth Road of one of its chief beauty spots.
In Surrey the main problem in dealing with the green belt is to provide effective links between the various commons which exist. In Epsom there is a point known throughout the world as Tattenham Corner. Anyone getting out at Tattenham Corner can spend a whole day walking over 20 miles of commons, a more extensive tract than there is in the five Midland counties of England. That gives an idea that commons are an essential part of a national parks scheme. We know the way in which small encroachments are made unless there is continual vigilance, and the National Parks Committee suggested that a survey should be made of all commons which were in existence on a given day in 1926. But nobody was empowered to make that survey, and it seems to me that this recommendation should be implemented by making it the duty of county councils to make arid file a survey of commons in their area, in the same way as rights of way are now being dealt with under the Rights of Way Act, 1932. The maps should be available for public inspection and freeholders of the common should have the right to make objections. There should also be some tribunal before whom disputes could be brought and prevent future encroachment on commons.
I want to refer to a matter which has perhaps more to do with the Minister of Transport. I hope that for the roads which are to supersede some of the existing trunk roads no land will be taken from commons unless it is absolutely necessary, and that in no case will a road be driven across a common. By driving an arterial road across a common you do not cut it into two parts, you destroy it from the point of view of its usefulness as a national park. We have only to remember the case of Mitcham Common, how it was cut up by a railway company, and Wandsworth Common to see the kind of damage which can be done by driving an arterial road through the middle of a great common. It is no answer to say

that the same number of acres have been put somewhere else on the edge. In these days we like to get away sometimes from the sound and smell of the motor car. However useful it may be in certain circumstances, there are moments when we desire to forget that we live in a mechanical age, and I feel that a great work has been done in getting a green belt round London, so as to increase the acreage over which people can roam without wondering whether they are going to be mowed down by some fast moving vehicle.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to the Minister of Transport what is the obvious feeling of the House on this matter. The Minister of Transport will not be so readily accessible to local feeling as the county council. In some of the remoter parts of England a common may be destroyed and great local indignation felt, but people may find it difficult to make that indignation felt in the Ministry of Transport. While we greatly enjoyed the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and the obvious knowledge he displayed of the subject, and while we know his great sympathy in this matter, yet I would ask him to convey to the Minister the strong feeling which exists in the House that if the work is to be done properly he must come to the aid of the districts with some financial resources to enable this great national work to be successfully completed.

10.11 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: While I listened with pleasure to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I confess that I was a little disappointed. I felt that he was relying too much on actions which may be taken by somebody else and was not realising sufficiently the importance of some coordinating power or authority. I do not advocate the setting up of a new authority, but I think there must be something more than was foreshadowed in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, to see that something will be done. I will not say one word against the importance of the question of playing fields. It is a question which deserves a Debate of its own. Then, as the representative of an area outside London, I felt that too much attention was being paid to the belt round London and to the southern counties. There are vast areas in the Midlands and the North which should receive full consideration. It is a much


wider question even than that. It is a question in which the people are taking a great deal of interest throughout the country. One of the great attractions we can offer visitors from other countries is the view of our countryside, and if we do not preserve our countryside we shall lose a great national asset.
I want to associate myself with the Motion and to thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) for having brought it forward. Dovedale is situate in my constituency. I am well aware of the beauties of the district and of its value to the community as a whole. It is an area which cannot be surpassed in the whole country, and, I am informed, cannot be surpassed in many countries in Europe. It is of national interest that something should be done soon to coordinate the various authorities which are interested in that area, to see that action is taken. Hanley is interested, and is perhaps the nearest authority; but there are also Manchester, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, Derby, and Stafford, in addition to the city of Stoke-on-Trent, which are within reasonable distance of this beautiful spot. They are districts which have the benefit of being able to visit it, but yet are not in a position to destroy it by being too near. That is of very great importance. All those are areas having very large populations which have the right to have preserved for them some of the beauties of the country. I must add my word of appreciation for the magnificent way in which Mr. McDougall has assisted in the preservation of that particular area. I do not think, however, that we ought to leave national questions of this sort entirely to the generosity of individuals; a bigger attitude should be taken up.
I am not one of those who believe that another authority should be set up, but I believe the subject is one sufficiently worthy to warrant the Ministry of Health having a separate department to deal with it and to see that something is done to stimulate the various authorities in coordinating their work in this matter. The question is one of very great importance to the people of this country. From a health point of view, they need to go into the country and to have the benefits of wide open spaces. Moreover, we ought to preserve the natural beauty of the country. Here let me say that, while it may be necessary to curtail the

industrial activities of the particular areas to which we are referring, it is not necessary to curtail the advantages which the nation may derive from them, for while curtailing the industrial development of the areas, it would not be necessary and would be a mistake to curtail the agricultural development. Agriculture does not detract from the beauties of the areas, but often adds to them.
One hon. Member referred to the question of housing, and spoke of the difficulty of having houses built in what he described as disorganised ways. My own view is that if there is one thing which spoils the countryside, it is to have housing which is too organised. To build houses in rows, one similar to another from the architectural point of view, does not, in my opinion, add to the beauty of the country. I believe the promiscuous building of houses in various spots, without that regimentation to which we object, is very much more conducive to the beauty of the countryside than housing schemes on the general lines of schemes as we understand them at the present time.
While the public demands, and has the right to demand, access to these areas, I think people should recognise that in enjoying the advantages of access they must put up with and accept the responsibilities which go with it. They have not the right to spoil the countryside. I would add that I do not believe that all the people who spoil the countryside are people who come from populous areas, for there are others who are just as guilty, perhaps because familiarity with the countryside may mean that they are not as conscious as they ought to be of the values which they are destroying. I believe we ought to see that powers are taken and put into operation to preserve the amenities of the countryside.
I think we might preserve the beauties of our country in two ways. The first way would be to have national parks, which might be reservations for game, or take some other form; but I do not think it would be necessary to have the sort of national parks which some of us have had the opportunity of seeing abroad. We could not possibly permit such vast areas to be used in that way in this country. Secondly, there are other areas which might be controlled.


I believe such areas would be of great value, and in many cases where a national park was not possible, it would be possible to have some very close restriction of the use of large areas which, while not injuring the utility of the countryside, in that agriculture would be allowed to go on, would preserve the amenities of the countryside. We must remember that all this natural beauty has not been created by us. It has been handed down to us for our use and benefit, with the obligation attached to it that we should hand it on to future generations and give them the advantages which we are claiming for ourselves to-day.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I begin; by associating myself with the Minister and all those hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on bringing forward this Motion. The House may also, I think, congratulate itself on this Debate. I hope that it will serve to stimulate opinion and that that opinion, in turn, will serve to stimulate the Government and the Minister to take rather more vigorous action than they have taken up to the present time. The House, I am sure, is aware from the speeches which have been made on this side that this is a, matter to which our party attaches great importance. I believe that fact is also shown by the record of the Labour party, both in Opposition and in the brief periods when it has held office in a minority in this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) said that in the preservation of the beauty of England the Forestry Commission ought to be concerned. I agree, and it is a fact that the first Labour Government of 1924 restored the original programme of the Forestry Commission, that is to say, did away with the cuts imposed by the Geddes axe.
It is also a fact that the second Labour Government in 1929 greatly increased the programme of the Forestry Commission and very nearly doubled the money which was available for its use. It is a fact that the Labour Government in 1931 exempted from Estate Duty lands and other properties made over to the National Trust. That was made permissive in the legislation then introduced,

and I wish it could be made obligatory so that the Treasury would not retain the power to take that taxation, though I believe that, in fact, the power has rarely, if ever, been exercised up to the present time. It is a fact that the Labour Government introduced the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1931, which later, in a somewhat emasculated form, became an Act of Parliament. It is a fact that the Labour Government appointed the Committee on National Parks, the report of which this House is discussing to-night. It is a fact that local authorities, and particularly the present administration of the county of London, have done a great deal to create green belts and local parks in many parts of the country. It is a fact, I believe, that the Labour party is the only party which has in its election programme—as appears from the pamphlet "For Socialism and Peace"—put before the country a policy for the planning and use of land which will make provision for "amenities, for the preservation of natural beauty, for the provision of national parks," and so on.
I mention all this, not to make any party capital, but to assure the Minister that we are prepared to give him the fullest support in any action he may take, and that if he will go further than he has gone to-night as to putting up money he can rely upon our party not to oppose him, but to lend him the fullest support. We join to-night in the all-party appeal which has been made to him to take this matter seriously and to do more than he has already done. This Motion is very wide in its scope and urges the Government to do all that they can
to stimulate and develop action for the preservation of the countryside and its amenities, including the reservation of
national parks. The Debate, too, has covered a wide range, and over the whole of that range the Minister has given us an extremely optimistic account of what is happening. I do not want to dispute what he says, that, considering that the legislation of 1933 has only been in force effectively for one year, the results are very encouraging indeed. I agree that what he said about playing fields is very encouraging, though, as another hon. Member suggested, I think it would be a suitable subject for a separate Debate. But in spite of what


he told us as to what has been done, I think, with most of my hon. Friends, that we need a national programme for the preservation of the countryside more ambitious than anything that the Government have yet given us.
We entirely agree that in times gone by the landowners have done very much to beautify the countryside, and I would like to say that so long as the system of private ownership of land continues, we should desire to respect private rights, so long as they were not in opposition to the public interest. I also agree that the public has a duty towards the private owner and that the public needs education in that duty, as long as the present system endures. But we also think that in this matter, as in afforestation, owing to economic causes, the present system has broken down. The present system does not provide for the preservation of the beauty of the countryside any more than it secures in this country the planting of trees which is required. That being so, we think it is urgent that Government action should be taken. A great deal of Government action has in fact, by general agreement, been taken; but we want more still.
I want to make a few suggestions concerning the national programme which we think is needed. Action by a great many different agencies is needed. First, by this Parliament. I will not elaborate the point, but I believe that the law with regard to building, ribbon development, control of elecations and designs, and so on, needs to be far stronger than it was made in the last Bill which was passed on the subject. In the second place, a great deal of the beauty of England is in what are called our private parks. I recall the evidence given to the National Committee on Parks, in 1931, I think it was, by the National Trust. They said in their memorandum that
the private parks of England are unique in the world and are not one of its least beautiful possessions.
They went to to say:
In them, as in our hedgerows, trees are grown for beauty and not for commercial reasons, as generally abroad, and are allowed to attain the special beauty of old age.
Again they went on:
Both parks and hedgerows are rapidly disappearing,

and unhappily it has continued to be true since 1931 that parks and hedgerows have rapidly disappeared. I believe that in this matter there are four different kinds of action to be taken. In the first place, there is that which has been mentioned by the Minister, namely, the "sterilisation" of land; and I should like to emphasise the point which he made—and it is important that landowners should understand it—that in sterilising land they would be acting with great public spirit, but, at the same time, it would not always involve them in any considerable financial loss. In the second place, I hope there is a considerable number of landowners who are reflecting carefully on the action of Sir Charles Trevelyan in donating his Wallington estate to the National Trust, and I hope his example will be widely followed. In the third place, there are a few enlightened local authorities which recognise the value to their communities of these private parks. I take as an example the ancient and honourable borough which I have the honour to represent. The borough of Derby, in the course of the last 10 years, has acquired two private parks, the Darley and Markeaton parks, which, owing to the operation of the death duties, were coming into the market, and in those parks they have now not only splendid open spaces for the people and magnificent gardens, but also the same ancient and beautiful houses have been retained as restaurants and tea-shops for the people of the borough. The same gardens and greenhouses have been kept on and the estates are worked as they were under the private owners, but now for the benefit of the town as a whole. I hope that that is an example which will be widely followed, and that it will be followed, in respect of parks further from towns, by local authorities that want hospitals, rest homes and maternity homes, like that maintained by the borough council of Bermondsey. In that way a great deal of our natural beauty in private parks may be kept for the nation.
In the fourth place—and I regard this as fundamental and I want to press it on the Minister with all my power—it is essential that the Government should exercise the power of which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton spoke, namely, that of taking land instead of


money in payment of death duties. The exercise of that power might do more than any other single measure to save a great deal of the beauty of the country which is being threatened, because unhappy landowners are almost forced to turn over their beautiful estates to the jerry-builder.
Next, we believe that a much greater use could be made than has yet been made of the National Trust. Everybody in all quarters of the House admires and appreciates the work which the Trust has done. I believe that it could do a great deal more than it has yet done; and that for this purpose it should be given much wider powers, for example, the same power as a planning authority; the power, in cases of necessity, of compulsory purchase; and it should be helped by grants of public money. I do not want to diminish in any way what the Trust has done. It is beyond all praise. I do not want to do anything which would retard or diminish the private support which it receives from public-spirited private persons. But I do believe that the Government could do a good service to the nation by helping the National Trust more than it does.
Next, I agree strongly with the hon. Member who spoke about the Forestry Commission and its work in creating forest parks. I hope that in England, Wales and Scotland we may have many forest parks of the kind of which he spoke. I believe that it is a fact, which I learned from a book by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), that after Portugal this is the least wooded country in Europe. Considering our climate, that is a national scandal. Unemployment can be relieved by forestry schemes more effectively per million pounds than by other schemes. There are more man years of work in forestry occupations per million pounds than in perhaps any other use to which unemployment funds can be put. I would like to urge on the hon. Member who is a member of the Forestry Commission, and on the Government, that, in fulfilling this duty, the Commission really ought to plant more hardwood trees than it does. I have nothing against the conifer in its proper place. When it grows old it makes a respectable forest of its kind. The special beauty

of England, however, lies in hard wood, and I hope that the Commission may be allowed to purchase the land and that they may be given more money, which they require for planting hardwood forests, than they have been given up to the present time.
Above and beyond all these things, I believe that we need more effective action than we have taken in respect of what to-night we are calling national parks or national reserves; in other words, more action to carry out the proposals of the report of 1931. What we have in mind are not forests, not the smaller kind of properties with which the National Trust deals, but they are the larger areas, and the action we want in respect of those areas is not merely the planning and the scheduling which the Minister said is going on at the present time. The report proposes that these national reserves should be reserves for the wild animals and wild birds that live in those areas, reserved for the plants and the flowers and the shrubs and the trees. It proposes that they should be made open to the public at large; that where there is not now access, access should be obtained.

Mr. HUDSON: That is always possible under the existing powers in the Town Planning Act.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I know it is possible, but we are not quite satisfied that it is going to happen.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member is urging that the Government ought to carry out the recommendations of the National Parks Committee, and I pointed out in my speech that they definitely said that the appropriate method of carrying out their recommendations was to give local authorities wider powers and not to put all these things upon the central Government. We have carried out those recommendations, and the powers do exist to give access to those parts. The Town Planning Act also gives powers to local authorities to make natural reserves for nature purposes.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I quite agree that it can be done, but in many cases it will involve the expenditure of more money. In any case it will involve a more ambitious plan than we believe local authorities will undertake. After the park has been made it will require administration


and management. I frankly admit that many of us on these benches believe that national ownership would be the best plan for dealing with the question of national parks. If you could have the whole Lake District taken over as a nationally-owned area that would be by far the best plan. I do not see why it should be impossible, if it is possible for the Forestry Commission to buy all the land from Carlisle to Newcastle although they cannot plant it. If it is possible for the Forestry Commission to take so much land as that, which it knows it cannot use, and to make it open to the public at large—I suppose some of it is used for pasture or farming of that kind —so we believe it ought to be possible to acquire the Lake District and other great areas in national ownership. Even if we do not do that, let us at least go beyond the mere planning which the Minister says is going on, and do so very soon, because the whole point about this business is the great urgency of getting a result. We must remember that some Government is going to build a great new network of roads in this country. We must remember that if ever we get over the world crisis, if ever the working classes get a fair share of the national income, the number of motor cars on the roads will probably be multiplied by five or ten in a short period of time, and that that will mean that there is hardly an acre in the British Isles which will not become potential building land or soon threatened by some kind of despoliation by the ignorant unless it is protected as a national park.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman asking us to plan for the day of the Labour party coming into power?

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: We think it is a good argument for coming into power, because we desire that all the people shall be able to have motor cars if they want them, and that all the people shall be able to enjoy the amenities of the countryside in full liberty, as the richer classes do. Let me come to one or two specific cases. We are not satisfied, as hon. Members opposite are not satisfied, with what has been done about Dovedale. The people of Derby take a great interest in the fate of Dovedale, and believe that it ought to be made a national park, and that to achieve that end a national initiative, and perhaps

assistance from the National Treasury, are required. A great deal of the best country is enclosed for the shooting of game, and we believe that it is just as important to keep the best country for the use of men who want to walk over it as for the shooting of game, and that it ought to be made available for the mass of the people. I believe that national action is required again, with regard to the Peak. As to the Lake District, the Minister has told us that the three county councils have each made committees, and that they are trying to coordinate their activities. I know that a great many of those who have been most active about the preservation of the Lake District, and who are most concerned about its future, are very far from satisfied with the present position of the matter.
We believe that there are many other places—Cornwall, the West Coast of Scotland, Pembrokeshire, the North Downs, the Broads—where we ought to be taking action with the absolute minimum of delay, that is to say, at once. What is the reason for the delay? It is that we need money. If the Government adopted our plan of purchase they would need a good deal of money, although measured in comparison with the sums we spend on other purposes, such as preparation for destruction, those sums of money are extraordinary small. You can do art enormous amount without purchasing the whole of the area, and without making a national park. I happen to know intimately well the Valley of Buttermere and the schemes in connection with it, and I have talked about it with those who have organised the scheme and with the farmers and the workers on the land who have helped to carry it out. In the Buttermere scheme, the National Trust owns a few little pieces of the land and it owns the lakes. A good deal of the land has been sold or farmed out under restrictive covenant with the National Trust with an agreement that it shall not be built over or otherwise despoilt without the consent of the National Trust. That scheme has the enthusiastic support of everybody, with one exception, I think, in the whole valley of Buttermere. Under that kind of scheme you could do an immense amount by organising it on a national basis for the country as a whole.
I was talking to an authority to-day and he said that if this plan were adopted, the whole Lake District could be preserved for ever, quite safely, at a maximum cost of £350,000. What is that sum compared with a object such as this? It is trifling. We think that for this purpose the national authority proposed by the Royal Commission and by the Committee on National Parks ought to be set up, and given the income which the Commissioners proposed. They proposed £100,000 a year for five years. On these benches we would be very glad to vote £1,000,000 if only the Government would propose it. What is £100,000? I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the First Commissioner of Works, in maintaining the Royal Parks of London—Hyde Park, the Green Park and St. James Park—spends £100,000 a year now. They are very important parks for the amenities of London and for the citizens of this great city, but the preservation of the great areas of open country for the nation as a whole is also important. If the sum of £100,000 were voted now, and if it were put into next year's Budget, an enormous amount could be done for the country, and the Ministry and the Government would have our enthusiastic support.
One word about the proposals of this Mr. Malcolm Stewart for the depressed areas. I regard this as rather apart from the main subject of national parks, because his principal purpose is not to preserve the countryside but to try to bring money into the depressed areas. As to the enchanted vale of Neath, I think it is an admirable plan, though perhaps too small an area to achieve his purpose. For people to go and stay in the area and spend a good deal of money by having the whole of their holidays, you need a larger area than 12 square miles. Supposing we took the Black Mountains, or the West Highlands of Scotland. In the West Highlands you have derelict crofter farms, and a derelict fishing industry because the fish have gone away, and great misery exists among the population there. Suppose that an effort were made, by building a trunk road to connect that district with the outer world, by the Government maintaining that road, as that country would be too poor to maintain the road for itself, and by assisting in the building of hotels. In that way, the

West Highlands might be made a holiday area just as might certain parts of South Wales. That would bring great benefit to the distressed areas concerned.
Once more I would press upon the Minister that for this purpose town planning is not enough. You need initiative in many different directions for these depressed areas schemes to secure the building of roads, hotels and so on. Some national body is needed which will push the matter as far as it can. We believe that there should be this national authority, and that it should be given the money which the Committee proposed in 1931. Someone has said that, if the national authority had the power to make grants and the money with which to do it, they would find that their capacity for guiding local authorities and persuading them to do what they wanted would be enormously increased, because it is a matter of experience that a 30 or 40 per cent. grant will greatly increase the chances of getting a local authority to do what you want. I would press again on the Minister the fact that this matter of money is fundamental; it stands to reason that that is so. The most sparsely populated parts of the country are those which you want most to preserve, but they are just the parts where the rateable value is lowest, and where any expenditure for buying people out or for other purposes is hardest for the local authority to carry. Therefore, we believe it ought to be done by the national Exchequer. The general grounds for this Motion are overwhelming. Someone has said that it is a good war policy. Certainly it is a good peace policy; and certainly it is in the interests of national health; and it can do something for unemployment. Above all, it will do that to which we attach the greatest importance; it will do much to preserve the beauty of the countryside. In conclusion, I should like to quote one of our great historians, Professor Trevelyan. He wrote some time ago:
Without vision the people perish: and without natural beauty the English people will perish in the spiritual sense. In old days the English people lived in the midst of nature, subject to its influence at every hour. Thus inspired, our ancestors produced their great creations in religion, in song, and in the arts and crafts—common products of a whole people spiritually alive.


We congratulate the Minister on the results which have been obtained, and, if we press him for more action still, it is because we believe that what Professor Trevelyan wrote enshrines the fundamental truth of the subject of our Debate. I hope that the House and the Government will recognise that what is now at stake is a part of the spiritual inheritance of the British people.

10.48 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I apologise for not having been present to hear the whole of the Debate. Members of my old college have been entertaining the Master and Fellows and we have had the pleasure of listening, among other speeches, to one from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). A subject often touched upon in connection with the Forestry Commission, of which I have had the honour of being a member since its start, is that of hardwoods. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was quite right in saying that normally, owing to Treasury restrictions, we are not allowed to buy land on which hardwoods will naturally grow. We can buy little pieces round the edges, and we are trying to do that more and more, but we cannot buy hardwood plantations, for they need something like agricultural land, which cannot at present be obtained at a capital value of £3 or £4 an acre. Talking of capital value, it is interesting to note that the rabbit costs us more than the landowner. On the average it frequently costs us more to keep the rabbit out than to acquire the freehold of the land. If something could be done on that matter, it would enormously facilitate the operations of the Forestry Commission. With regard to hardwoods, it is a, fact that in the districts of England where they grow most easily and readily—for instance, in one of our divisions which stretches roughly from Southampton to Northampton, excluding the Norfolk and Suffolk conifer area—we have, I think I am right in saying, of recent years planted something like 84 per cent. under hardwood, which shows that we are very much alive to the idea of planting hardwood where hardwood is likely to grow.
I would like to mention one other thing. I do not think that people know

anything like enough of how easy it is to transfer land to the National Trust —not to part completely with ownership, which they would feel, of course, to be a loss to their property and estates, but to hand it over on a long lease. My family transferred a large estate on a long lease—500 years—at a rent of half a crown a year. We feel just as much owners as before. We can, from the point of view of amenities, look after the forestry; our tenants put sheep on the hill; we let the shooting, if there is any; and we are generally regarded as still the owners. And yet the whole estate of Exmoor Upland is preserved from spoliation, harmful building and so on, at any rate, for 500 years. It would be easy in those districts where owners feel that forestry would spoil the amenities to transfer land. to the National Trust simply on lease, but under covenant that neither they nor their successors should establish conifer forests there. They would continue to regard themselves as owners and to get such income as is available out of the area, but their main object would be attained. It is not a great thing to ask people so to dedicate their land or hand it over to the National Trust that factories should not be established there, or only under limited conditions. I do not think that these things have been sufficiently explored.
The main point I want to make is to express my regret that the Minister, who has spoken, has not taken advantage of this matter being brought before the House to put before us any real prospect that the Government is likely to take a more active interest in it. That is a pity. We all know that in the next few years national defence must come before anything else. As a member of the Forestry Commission I heard a circular letter from the Treasury read out which adjured us to avoid any expenditure which we could possibly dispense with because the resources of the nation would be taken up with the defence programme. We understand that, but it is a pity that on an occasion of this sort—and it does not occur often—the Minister has not been able to say that when things clear up a bit and the clouds roll by in Europe, as we hope they will, and the bulk of the defence programme


has been got through that this is one of the matters to which the Government will give practical attention. It is no good saying that local authorities can do it all. They can do a certain amount, but in this national inspiration, guidance and co-ordination are necessary, and I am sorry that we have had nothing of that kind from the Government to-day.
We have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) of the good work that has been done on very little money by the Forestry Commission. We have not even had any indication that the Government will make it possible for the Forestry Commission to make other areas available for the public, with hostels and that sort of thing, to which people are obviously only too willing to resort as soon as they are built and set up. We have not had any indication that we shall be allowed to go on with fresh areas. I am sorry for that, but I am glad my hon. Friend has raised the matter, and I only hope that the attitude that the Government has taken may be due to official caution and that, when times improve, they may be better than their word and that in several ways the cause of preserving our matchless heritage of natural beauty will be furthered by efforts in which they will co-operate.

10.56 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I want to refer to a small area of country in Derbyshire known as Dovedale, which is regarded with very great affection, and apprehension, by many thousands of people in the Manchester area and Birmingham and the industrial centres in the North Midlands. Indeed there is no other gem of the kind in the country so tightly encircled by an industrial belt as these wonderful dales in Derbyshire. I hope that in any move that is made, either by the Government towards National Parks or in the activities of the National Trust, every effort will be made to preserve these wonderful bits of Derbyshire which are still in a. natural state.

sir J. LAMB: It is in Staffordshire, not Derbyshire.

Sir J. NALL: I am talking of Dove-dale in Derbyshire. It is in that area

that industrial aggression may very well in a few years time spoil the chance that now exists of preserving this heritage, and I only rise to record the fact that anything that may be done by Government action or by the National Trust will be very highly appreciated by a large number of people

10.58 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I have to make the same excuse as the right hon. Gentleman opposite for not having been able to attend a discussion in which I have taken the keenest interest. I should like to endorse what has been said as to the desirability that, in a matter of such real urgency as well as national importance, the Government should take a direct, hand in the matter. It is not only a matter for leisurely planning but for direct initiative and direct expenditure. I do not mean necessarily expenditure through Government Departments. There is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that Government help might be given through such a body as the National Trust. Even at a moment of high taxation I do not see why it should be impossible for the Government to guarantee loans raised by bodies like the National Trust in order that something as necessary for the future generations of our people as our defence should be got on with at once. I wish to express the view that it is not only on the other side of the House, but that on all benches there is a desire to make as much of the beauty of England accessible to all its people as possible.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend was not here during the Debate. Had he been present, he would have known that I did indicate in considerable detail the practical steps that could be taken without laying any financial charge on the Central Government.

Resolved,
That this House urges the Government, especially in view of the new national health crusade, to take whatever steps may seem most appropriate in the light of the recommendations of the National Parks Committee, 1931, to stimulate and develop action for the preservation of the countryside and its amenities, including the reservation of areas of natural interest against disorderly development and spoliation and the improvement of their accessibility to the public.

SHEEP STOCKS VALUATION (SCOTLAND BILL).

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock